Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of Labor Law
(Letter Report, 10/24/95, GAO/HEHS-96-8).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
extent to which federal contractors violate the National Labor Relations
Act (NLRA), focusing on: (1) the characteristics associated with these
NLRA violators; and (2) ways to improve federal contractors' compliance
with NLRA.

GAO found that: (1) in 1993, 6 firms held 90 percent of the federal
contracts awarded to NLRA violators; (2) the cases brought to the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) mainly involved workers' rights,
collective bargaining, and discrimination violations; (3) NLRB remedies
mainly included the reinstatement of unlawfully fired workers,
restoration of workers' job status, payment of back wages or benefits,
collective bargaining orders, and orders to cease threatening workers
with job loss; (4) the NLRB remedies affected nearly 1,000 individual
workers and thousands of additional workers represented by 12 bargaining
units; (5) most of the NLRA violators were Departments of Defense and
Energy contractors; (6) 15 of the 80 violators had to reinstate or
restore more than 20 individuals each, NLRB cease and desist orders
issued against them, or a history of NLRA violations; and (7) NLRB could
enhance its enforcement of NLRA by collecting judgments against
violators from their federal contract awards and increasing coordination
with the General Services Administration (GSA) to identify such
violators.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-96-8
     TITLE:  Worker Protection: Federal Contractors and Violations of 
             Labor Law
      DATE:  10/24/95
   SUBJECT:  Contract violations
             Federal procurement
             Labor law
             Collective bargaining
             Contract noncompliance
             Administrative remedies
             Employment discrimination
             Proposed legislation
             Employee dismissal
             Labor-management relations
IDENTIFIER:  Federal Contractor Labor Relations Enforcement Act of 1995
             GSA Federal Procurement Data System
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Honorable
Paul Simon, U.S.  Senate

October 1995

WORKER PROTECTION - FEDERAL
CONTRACTORS AND VIOLATIONS OF
LABOR LAW

GAO/HEHS-96-8

Federal Contractor Labor Violations

(205276)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AIDS - acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
  ALJ - administrative law judge
  AT&T - American Telephone and Telegraph Company
  CHIPS - case handling information processing system
  CEC - contractor establishment code
  FPDS - Federal Procurement Data System
  GSA - General Services Administration
  NLRA - National Labor Relations Act
  NLRB - National Labor Relations Board
  OFCCP - Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
  SIC - standard industrial classification code
  ULTICEC - ultimate contractor establishment code
  ULP - unfair labor practice

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-257208

October 24, 1995

The Honorable Paul Simon
United States Senate

Dear Senator Simon: 

Private sector firms receive billions of dollars annually in federal
government contracts for goods and services.  While these firms
generally profit from their business with the federal government,
some also violate federal laws that protect the rights of employees
to bargain collectively.  You have proposed legislation that would
debar firms exhibiting a "clear pattern and practice" of violating
the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) from receiving federal
contracts.\1

Given your interest in this issue, you requested that we identify the
extent to which violators of NLRA include employers who have
contracts with the government (referred to as federal contractors). 
More specifically, you asked us to identify characteristics
associated with these federal contractors and their NLRA violations. 
You also asked us to identify ways to improve compliance of federal
contractors with NLRA. 

To address your request, we matched fiscal years 1993 and 1994 case
data from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a database
of federal contractors maintained by the General Services
Administration (GSA).  We verified by telephone that the matched
firms had federal contracts.  We then reviewed Board decisions to
identify characteristics of the violations.\2 Finally, we analyzed
the GSA database for characteristics of contracts held by these
violators in fiscal year 1993.  We did our work from August 1994 to
September 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.  (See app.  I for a detailed discussion of our
scope and methodology.)


--------------------
\1 The proposed Federal Contractor Labor Relations Enforcement Act of
1995 (S.  780) was introduced on May 9, 1995. 

\2 In this report, the NLRB refers to the entire agency implementing
NLRA.  The Board refers to a five-member Board which, serving in a
judicial capacity, hears unfair labor practice (ULP) cases. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Federal contracts have been awarded to employers who have violated
NLRA.  We found that 80 firms had violated the act and received over
$23 billion, about 13 percent of the $182 billion in federal
contracts awarded in fiscal year 1993.\3

However, these contracts were concentrated among only a few
violators; six violators received almost 90 percent of the more than
$23 billion in contracts. 

The Board cases that we examined indicate a range of violations.  The
cases also show that the Board had ordered various remedies relating
to the unlawful activities by firms that discouraged workers from
exercising their right to bargain collectively.  For example, as a
remedy, the Board ordered firms to reinstate or restore workers in 35
of 88 cases (some of the 80 firms were involved in more than one
case) in which workers were unlawfully fired, transferred, or not
hired in the first place because of activities for or association
with a union.  Other remedies, such as restoring lost wages and
benefits or demanding that the firm stop threatening workers with job
loss, were also ordered by the Board in many of these 88 cases. 
Altogether, these remedies affected nearly 1,000 individual workers
as well as thousands of additional workers represented in 12
bargaining units. 

Fifteen of the violators (almost 20 percent of the 80 firms) might be
considered more serious violators.  These firms, for example, had
been ordered to reinstate or restore more than 20 individual workers
each or had been issued a broad cease and desist order by the
Board.\4 Of these 15 violators, we also found some that have a
history of violating the act. 

NLRB's enforcement of the act could be enhanced by collecting
judgments against violators from federal contract awards. 
Coordination with GSA to identify violators with federal contracts,
however, would be necessary to collect judgments in this fashion. 


--------------------
\3 These totals are likely an underestimate of the number of
violators and contracts they received because of the difficulties
involved in a manual matching procedure.  The $23 billion in federal
contracts were awarded to the parent firms of the 80 violators. 

\4 The Board issues a broad cease and desist order when a firm has
demonstrated a proclivity to violate NLRA or when there has been
widespread or egregious misconduct.  Unlike narrow cease and desist
orders, a broad order prohibits a range of unlawful conduct and
serves as the basis for initiating contempt proceedings if the firm
commits additional violations. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Federal contracts involve considerable dollars, resulting in
employment for many workers.  GSA's data show that federal contracts
in fiscal year 1993 totaled about $182 billion.  Approximately 22
percent of the labor force, 26 million workers, is employed by
federal contractors and subcontractors, according to fiscal year 1993
estimates of the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP).\5

Federal law and an executive order place greater responsibilities on
federal contractors compared with other employers in some areas of
workplace activity.  For example, federal contractors must comply
with Executive Order 11246, which requires a contractor to develop an
affirmative action program detailing the steps that the contractor
will take and has already taken to ensure equal employment
opportunity for all workers, regardless of race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.  In addition, the Service Contract Act and
the Davis-Bacon Act require the payment of area-prevailing wages and
benefits on federal contracts in the service and construction
industries, respectively.  NLRA, as amended, provides the basic
framework governing private sector labor-management relations.  The
act, passed in 1935, created an independent agency, NLRB, to
administer and enforce the act.\6 Among other duties, NLRB is
responsible for preventing and remedying violations of the
act--unfair labor practices (ULPs) committed by employers or
unions.\7 NLRB's functions are divided between its Office of the
General Counsel and a five-member board.  The Office of the General
Counsel, organized into 52 field offices in 33 regions, investigates
and prosecutes ULP charges.  The Board, appointed by the President
with Senate approval, reviews all cases decided by administrative law
judges (ALJ) in the regions.\8

Under Section 8 of the act,\9 it is illegal for employers to
interfere with workers' right to organize or bargain collectively or
for employers to discriminate in hiring, tenure, or condition of
employment in order to discourage membership in any labor
organization; and such behavior is defined as a ULP.\10 After
concluding that a violation has been committed, the Board typically
requires firms to cease and desist the specific conduct for which a
ULP is found.  The Board may order a variety of remedies, including
requiring the firm to reinstate unlawfully fired workers or restore
wages and benefits to the bargaining unit.  In some cases, the Board
will also issue a broad cease and desist order prohibiting the firm
from engaging in a range of unlawful conduct. 

If an employer to whom the federal government owes money (such as a
federal contractor) has failed to comply with an order by the Board
to restore wages or benefits, the government has the option of
withholding from any amount owed to that employer (including payments
under a federal contract) any equal or lesser amount that the
contractor owes under the Board order.  A withholding in this manner
is referred to as a collection by administrative offset.\11

In addition to the remedies mentioned above, the Congress has
considered debarring from federal contracts firms that have violated
NLRA in the past.  In 1977, legislation that would have debarred
firms from federal contracts for a 3-year period for willfully
violating NLRA was introduced but was never enacted.\12

NLRB has several databases that track cases at different stages of
processing.  One of NLRB's databases, the Executive Secretary's
database, tracks all cases that go before the Board.  Many of these
cases were first heard by an ALJ after an investigation by the Office
of the General Counsel's regional staff determined the case had
merit.  Cases that go before the Board represent only a small
percentage of all ULP cases because most cases are withdrawn,
dismissed, or informally settled without being reviewed by the
Board.\13 None of NLRB's databases, including the Executive
Secretary's database, contains information as to whether or not
violators have federal contracts. 

GSA maintains the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) that tracks
firms receiving over $25,000 in federal funding in exchange for goods
and services provided.  For fiscal year 1993, FPDS tracked
information on almost 200,000 contracts totaling about $182 billion,
which were awarded to over 57,000 parent firms.  FPDS contains a
variety of information, including the contractor's name and location,
agency the contract is with, type of industry the contractor is
engaged in, and contract dollar amounts awarded.  However, FPDS does
not contain information on contractors' labor relations records. 


--------------------
\5 OFCCP is responsible for ensuring compliance of federal
contractors and subcontractors with their affirmative action and
equal opportunity responsibilities.  For more information on OFCCP,
see Equal Employment Opportunity:  DOL Contract Compliance Reviews
Could Better Target Federal Contractors (GAO/HEHS-95-177, Sept.  28,
1995). 

\6 The Board's jurisdiction extends to all firms--profit and
nonprofit--engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.  Major
exemptions include agricultural laborers, domestics, workers covered
by the Railway Labor Act, management employees, confidential
employees, and supervisors. 

\7 NLRB is also responsible for conducting elections to determine
whether employees wish to be represented by a union.  In this report,
however, we focus on NLRB's duty to prevent and remedy ULPs. 

\8 If a decision by an ALJ is not contested by either party, the
Board simply affirms the ALJ decision so that it can be enforced.  In
some instances, the Board might issue a decision without an ALJ
hearing, referred to as a summary judgment.  While all five Board
members may participate in the review of an ALJ's decision, and
frequently do in cases which establish or change policy,
decision-making authority in most cases is delegated to three-member
panels. 

\9 Section 8(a) provides that it is a violation or a ULP for an
employer to (1) interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organize; (2) dominate or interfere
with the formation or administration of any labor organization; (3)
discriminate in hiring, or any term or condition of employment, to
encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; (4)
discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee for filing
charges or giving testimony under this act; and (5) refuse to bargain
collectively with the majority representative of employees. 

\10 Section 8(b) violations refer to ULPs committed by unions. 
Because unions are typically not federal contractors, we did not
include 8(b) violations in this report. 

\11 Collections by administrative offset are required to follow
procedures set forth in 4 C.F.R.  102.3. 

\12 The proposed Labor Reform Act of 1977 (H.R.  8410) was introduced
on July 19, 1977. 

\13 We examined the timeliness of Board case processing in National
Labor Relations Board:  Action Needed to Improve Case-Processing Time
at Headquarters (GAO/HRD-91-29, Jan.  7, 1991).  We reported that
more than a year may elapse before a case that goes before the Board
is decided.  (See app.  I for more details on case processing.)


   A FEW LABOR LAW VIOLATORS
   RECEIVED BILLIONS IN FEDERAL
   CONTRACTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Federal contracts are awarded to employers who violate NLRA.  A total
of 80 firms, receiving over $23 billion from over 4,400 contracts,
had both labor violations and contracts.\14

Altogether, about 13 percent of total fiscal year 1993 contracts of
$182 billion went to these 80 violators (see fig.  1).  However,
these contracts were concentrated among only a few violators; six
violators received about $21 billion of the more than $23 billion in
contracts.\15

These totals are likely an underestimate of the number of violators
and contracts they received because of the difficulties involved in
the manual matching procedure we used in this analysis.  This manual
procedure was necessitated by the lack of a corporate identification
number for firms in the NLRB case data.  Because firms may split up,
merge, subcontract, operate subsidiaries, or change names, the same
firm might have appeared under different names in NLRB case data and
the FPDS and thereby escaped our detection.  Also, we were unable to
verify those firms that went out of business or relocated or for
which location data in NLRB case data or FPDS were incomplete or
inaccurate. 

   Figure 1:  Percent of Contract
   Dollars That Went to Firms
   Violating NLRA (Fiscal Year
   1993)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Violators refer to the parent firm.  In some cases, the
violations may have occurred within a subsidiary or division of the
parent firm. 

Source:  FPDS, fiscal year 1993. 

Each of these six violators, listed below, who together received
almost 90 percent of the more than $23 billion in contracts awarded
to all violators, received more than $500 million in fiscal year 1993
contracts.  (See app.  II, fig.  II.4.) They are also among the
largest federal contractors, ranking in the top 20 firms receiving
federal contract dollars.\16

  McDonnell Douglas ($7.7 billion),\17

  Westinghouse Electric ($4.9 billion),

  Raytheon ($3.5 billion),

  United Technologies ($3 billion),

  American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) ($1.4 billion),

  Fluor Corporation ($508 million).\18

In contrast, contract dollars were not as concentrated among all
federal contractors.  Firms receiving more than $500 million in
contracts got about one-half (47 percent) of all federal contract
dollars. 


--------------------
\14 In reporting on characteristics of federal contractors, including
contract dollars received, we are referring here to parent firms.  In
some cases, the violator might be a division, subsidiary, or have
some other legal relationship with the parent firm.  We did not
determine the extent to which violators of NLRA were federal
subcontractors (firms who receive a portion of the contract award
through a primary federal contractor) because we could not identify
these subcontractors.  Because any violation may have been committed
more than a year before the Board's decision, firms we identified as
violators per Board decisions issued in fiscal years 1993 and 1994
may not have been receiving federal contracts at the same time that
they committed violations. 

\15 Of about 1,500 NLRB cases decided by the Board during fiscal
years 1993 and 1994, 6 percent of the cases (88) involved 80 firms
(some with more than one case) with both violations and federal
contracts. 

\16 All but the Fluor Corporation were among the top 20 federal
contractors by contract dollar in fiscal year 1994 as reported in
Government Executive's most recent annual report on federal
purchasing.  This annual report is also based on FPDS. 

\17 Very recently, the U.S.  Court of Appeals (D.C.  Circuit,
September 13, 1995) remanded the NLRB cases against McDonnell Douglas
Corporation to the Board.  The U.S.  Court of Appeals asked the Board
to reconsider its decision.  The Board's additional review could
affect McDonnell Douglas Corporation's classification as a labor law
violator. 

\18 Raytheon committed labor law violations at a Pensacola, Florida,
facility of its subsidiary, Beech Aerospace Services, Inc. 
Similarly, United Technologies Corporation had violations at a
Middletown, Connecticut, facility of its division, Pratt & Whitney
Aircraft.  The Fluor Corporation had violations at several facilities
in Kentucky of its subsidiary, Fluor Daniel, Inc. 


      FIRMS INTERFERED WITH
      WORKERS' RIGHT TO BARGAIN
      COLLECTIVELY IN ABOUT
      ONE-HALF OF THE CASES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Of the 88 cases decided by the Board during fiscal years 1993 and
1994 involving federal contractors, the Board found that the firm had
interfered with workers' right to organize, a Section 8(a)(1)
violation, in 44 cases.  In 45 of the 88 cases, the Board found that
a firm had refused to bargain collectively with employee
representatives, a Section 8(a)(5) violation.  Thirty-three of the 88
cases involved discrimination by a firm in hiring or condition of
employment, which is a violation of Section 8(a)(3).  Far fewer cases
involved other types of violations.\19 (See app.  II, fig.  II.1.)


--------------------
\19 A case may involve more than one type of violation.  Only 4 cases
involved a firm dominating or interfering with the formation or
administration of a labor organization, a Section 8(a)(2) violation. 
In only 3 cases was the firm found to have discharged or
discriminated against an employee because he or she had filed charges
or given testimony under NLRA, a Section 8(a)(4) violation. 


      FIRMS ORDERED TO REINSTATE
      OR RESTORE WORKERS IN ABOUT
      40 PERCENT OF CASES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In 35 of the 88 cases, the Board required firms to reinstate or
restore workers as the remedy for violations.\20 In 32 of these 35
cases, firms were ordered to reinstate unlawfully fired workers.  In
6 of them, firms were ordered to restore workers who had been
subjected to another kind of unfavorable change in job status.  An
unfavorable change in job status could mean the worker, for example,
was suspended, demoted, transferred, or not hired in the first place
because of activities for or association with a union.  Some cases
involved both an order to reinstate fired workers and an order to
restore workers who were subjected to another kind of unfavorable
change in job status.  (See app.  II, fig.  II.2.)

In 44 of the 88 cases, the Board ordered the firm to pay back wages
to affected workers.  The Board ordered the firm to restore benefits
in 28 cases.  In most cases, back wages or benefits were owed to
individual workers who had been illegally fired or subjected to
another kind of unfavorable change in job status.  However, in 12
cases, wages or benefits were ordered restored to all workers in the
bargaining unit because the firm illegally failed to pay wages or
benefits as required under its contract with the union.  Some cases
involved both a remedy for individual workers owed back wages or
benefits as well as the same type of remedy for the entire bargaining
unit.  (See app.  II, fig.  II.2.)

The Board also ordered other types of remedies in many of these 88
cases.  For example, in 33 cases, the Board ordered the firm to
bargain with the union.\21 In 24 cases, firms were ordered to stop
threatening employees with the loss of the job or the shutdown of the
firm.  Firms were ordered in 33 cases to stop other kinds of threats,
such as interrogating employees and circulating lists of employees
associated with the union.  To facilitate the bargaining of a
contract, the Board ordered firms to provide information to the union
in 16 cases.  (See app.  II, fig.  II.3.)


--------------------
\20 More cases involved an order to reinstate or restore workers than
contained a Section 8(a)(3) violation, which refers to discrimination
in hiring or condition of employment.  This is because the Board
might order that a firm reinstate a worker when another type of
violation was committed.  For example, in the case involving Shell
Company (Puerto Rico) Limited, the Board found that the firm
committed a Section 8(a)(5) violation by refusing to bargain with the
union when it "unilaterally" changed the collective bargaining
agreement, laying off or terminating seven employees in the unit. 
The Board ordered the firm to reinstate these employees. 

\21 The Board's decision might also declare that the firm must
recognize the union or honor the bargaining agreement. 


      NEARLY 1,000 INDIVIDUAL
      WORKERS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY
      VIOLATIONS AND REMEDIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Nearly 1,000 individual workers and thousands of additional workers
represented in 12 bargaining units were directly affected by
violations of the act in these 88 cases.  During fiscal years 1993
and 1994, the Board ordered firms to reinstate or restore 761
individual workers to their appropriate job position.  These workers
had either been fired or experienced another kind of unfavorable
change in job status; for example, they were transferred or not
hired.  These workers are included among those who were paid back
wages or had benefits restored.  Altogether, 801 individual workers
were paid back wages and 462 workers had benefits restored because of
Board-ordered remedies.  In addition, the Board ordered firms to
restore wages and benefits to contract levels for thousands of
workers represented in 12 bargaining units.\22


--------------------
\22 For many of the cases, we were unable to determine the total
number of workers affected by Board-ordered remedies involving an
entire bargaining unit.  This is because NLRB officials told us that
they did not have reliable data on the number of employees in
bargaining units for which remedies were ordered.  However, some of
these bargaining units affected by Board-ordered remedies are quite
large.  For example, the Board ordered Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, a
division of United Technologies Corporation, to pay raises owed as a
result of revised job evaluations to all workers in the bargaining
unit of the firm's Middletown, Connecticut, plant.  The bargaining
unit included about 2,000 workers at that time. 


   CHARACTERISTICS OF FEDERAL
   CONTRACTORS THAT VIOLATED NLRA
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Most of the contracts awarded to violators in fiscal year 1993 came
from the Department of Defense and went to firms primarily engaged in
manufacturing.  The violations occurred in facilities owned or
associated with parent firms that typically had more than 10,000
employees or over $1 billion in annual sales. 

About $17 billion in contracts that went to violators came from the
Department of Defense, accounting for 73 percent of such contracts. 
In addition to Defense, significant contract dollars were awarded to
violators by the Department of Energy ($3.7 billion), National
Aeronautics and Space Administration ($1.2 billion), and GSA ($702
million).  Similarly, these four agencies were the source of most
contract dollars (88 percent) to all federal contractors.  However, a
higher percentage of contract dollars awarded to violators came from
the Departments of Defense and Energy as compared with that awarded
to all federal contractors from these two agencies.  (See app.  II,
fig.  II.5.)

Most contract dollars--$15.6 billion or 67 percent--went to violators
who were primarily engaged in manufacturing.\23 An examination of
more detailed violators' industry codes shows that the highest
percentage of contract dollars in manufacturing went toward the
production of aircraft parts, guided missiles, and space vehicles. 
Although manufacturing is the industry in which most violators are
engaged, a significant percentage of contract dollars--25 percent,
about $6 billion--went to companies primarily engaged in providing
services.\24 As is the case for violators, most contract dollars to
all federal contractors went to firms in the manufacturing and
services industries.  However, a lower percentage of contract dollars
to all federal contractors went to manufacturing (47 percent) as
compared with violators (67 percent).  (See app.  II, fig.  II.6.)

Many violations occurred in facilities owned by firms that had over
10,000 employees or $1 billion in annual sales as of fiscal year
1994.\25 Of the 77 violators for which data on workforce size were
available, 35 had more than 10,000 employees.  By contrast, only 22
violators had 500 or fewer employees and still fewer (5) were so
small as to have 25 or fewer employees.  For those 64 violators for
which annual sales information was available, 32 had more than $1
billion in sales annually.  Ten firms had annual sales greater than
$10 billion.  (See app.  II, figs.  II.7 and II.8.)


--------------------
\23 FPDS uses the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes--a
federal classification system--in order to describe the type of
industry in which the firms receiving federal contracts are engaged. 
Firms can be classified by 11 major groups--including mining,
construction, manufacturing, and services. 

\24 We followed the SIC classification system in defining services. 
Services include hotel and motels, personal services such as
drycleaning, business services such as advertising agencies, auto and
other repair services, motion pictures, amusement and recreation
services, health services, legal services, educational services, and
social services. 

\25 Unlike other data on federal contractors reported here, which are
fiscal year 1993 data, data on workforce size and annual sales are
either fiscal year 1994 or 1995 data. 


   FIFTEEN FIRMS CLASSIFIED AS
   MORE SERIOUS LABOR LAW
   VIOLATORS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Violations of NLRA vary in their severity.  Given this variation, we
identified 15 firms that might be considered more serious violators
using criteria we developed based on our review of Board decisions. 
These firms meet one or more of the criteria listed below: 

  Received a comprehensive Board-ordered remedy.  We considered a
     remedy to be comprehensive if the firm received a broad cease
     and desist order or a Gissel bargaining order,\26

or was ordered to cease and desist 10 or more types of unlawful
actions against workers.\27

  Took actions affecting the job status of more than 20 workers. 

  Had a history of labor law violations. 

We identified a total of 12 of the 15 firms as serious violators
because the Board-ordered remedy was comprehensive relative to
remedies in other cases.  This included four firms that received a
broad cease and desist order.  Cease and desist orders are typically
narrow in that they prohibit continuation of the specific conduct
found to be unlawful.  However, in some cases, the Board issues a
broad cease and desist order prohibiting the firm from engaging in a
range of unlawful conduct.  This may occur when a firm has
demonstrated a proclivity to violate the act or when there has been
widespread or egregious misconduct.  The Board may also issue a broad
cease and desist order to cover all of an employer's facilities or
those facilities where a union has jurisdiction if there has been a
pattern or practice of unlawful conduct.\28

Also among the 12 firms whose Board-ordered remedy was more
comprehensive are two firms that received a Gissel bargaining order. 
The Board imposes a Gissel bargaining order as an extraordinary
remedy when the firm has committed ULPs that have made the holding of
a fair election unlikely or that have undermined the union's majority
and caused an election to be set aside.  Also among the firms whose
Board-ordered remedy was more comprehensive, we included 10 firms
ordered to cease and desist 10 or more types of unlawful actions
against workers.  Although these cease and desist orders were narrow,
the relatively high number of unlawful actions listed in the Board
decision suggest that the firm may be a more serious violator.\29

Examples of violators whose Board-ordered remedies were comprehensive
relative to remedies in other cases include Monfort of Colorado,
Inc., a meat processing firm, which received a broad cease and desist
order because of ULPs committed at its facility in Greeley, Colorado. 
Monfort of Colorado, Inc., was found by the Board to have
discriminated against 258 former union employees by applying more
rigorous hiring criteria and taking numerous actions against
employees to discourage union activity.  Waste Management, Inc. 
(Salt Lake Division), a firm engaged in waste pickup and disposal,
received a bargaining order in addition to a broad cease and desist
order.  The firm had taken numerous actions against employees in a
West Jordan, Utah, facility to discourage union activity and created
employer-dominated committees during a union organizing drive that it
then dissolved after the union lost the election.  The Board ordered
a Tyson Foods, Inc., facility in Dardanelle, Arkansas, that engaged
in poultry processing, to cease and desist 10 or more types of
unlawful actions against workers, including "directing, controlling,
circulating, and assisting in the circulation of a petition" to
decertify a union. 

Firms were also considered to be serious violators if their
violations affected the job status of more than 20 individual
workers, which was true for four firms.\30 These workers had either
been unlawfully fired or subjected to some other unfavorable change
in their job status; for example, not hired in the first place
because of activities for or association with a union. 

For example, Caterair International, a firm that caters food for
commercial airlines, was ordered to reinstate 289 workers who were
permanently replaced when they lawfully went on strike at three
facilities in Los Angeles to protest ULPs committed by the firm. 
Fluor Daniel, Inc., a general contractor in the construction
business, was ordered to hire 53 applicants who the firm
discriminatorily refused to hire at several facilities in Kentucky
because of their union affiliation.  In addition, the Board ordered
Fluor Daniel, Inc., to reinstate another employee who was fired
because he refused to cross a picket line. 

Another criterion that could identify a serious violator is whether
or not the firm has a history of labor law violations.  Although we
were unable to systematically determine the labor relations record
for each of the 80 violators, we were able to determine which of the
15 firms that we had already identified as serious violators also had
a history of violations.\31

Five of the 15 serious violators had a history of labor law
violations, and 3 firms (Beverly Enterprises; Monfort of Colorado,
Inc.; and Overnite Transportation Co.) had several prior Board
decisions against them.\32 Monfort of Colorado, Inc., for example,
received another broad cease and desist order in 1987 for firing two
workers because of their union activities at a facility in Grand
Island, Nebraska.  At this facility, Monfort of Colorado, Inc., was
also found to have refused to grant contract-specified wage increases
to the bargaining unit, assisted an employer-dominated committee, and
promised a bonus to discourage workers' support for a union. 

Beverly Enterprises, which operates nursing homes, violated the NLRA
in additional facilities before its fiscal year 1993 and 1994
violations.  For example, in 1986, the Board ordered Beverly
Enterprises to bargain with the union and restore wages and benefits
that had been unilaterally changed at a nursing home in Waterloo,
Iowa.  In 1990, the Board found Overnite Transportation Co., a firm
engaged in the interstate transportation of freight, to have
unlawfully fired one employee at a facility in Lexington, Kentucky,
because he gave testimony at a hearing before an ALJ.  In 1982, the
Board ordered Overnite Transportation Co.  to reinstate a worker who
was not recalled because of his union activities at a St.  Louis
facility.  (See app.  IV.)



                                Table 1
                
                  Firms Indicated by Criteria As More
                  Serious NLRA Violators (Fiscal Years
                             1993 and 1994)

                                                        Affect
                                                        ed job
                                                Receiv  status
                                                  ed a      of
                                                compre    more   Had a
                                                hensiv    than  histor
                                                     e      20    y of
                                                remedy  worker  violat
Firm                                                \a     s\b  ions\c
----------------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------
Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.                                       X
Beaird Industries, Inc.                              X
Beverly Enterprises                                  X               X
Caterair International                                       X
Durbin Poultry Company (Marshall)                    X
Flexsteel Industries, Inc.                           X
Fluor Daniel, Inc.                                           X       X
Lane Construction Company (The)                      X
Monfort of Colorado, Inc.                            X       X       X
Overnite Transportation Co.                          X               X
Tyson Foods, Inc.                                    X
Ursery Companies, Inc.                               X
Victorian Heights Health Care Center                 X
Waste Management, Inc. (Salt Lake Division)          X               X
Windsor Castle Health Care Facilities, Inc.          X
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Received a broad cease and desist order, a Gissel bargaining
order, or was ordered to cease and desist 10 or more types of
unlawful actions against workers. 

\b Ordered to reinstate or restore more than 20 workers who had been
unlawfully fired or not hired. 

\c Violated NLRA in at least one other case since 1980. 


--------------------
\26 A bargaining order is referred to as a Gissel bargaining order
because it is based on principles established by the Supreme Court in
its 1969 Gissel decision.  NLRB v.  Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.  575
(1969).  Although the Board may order a firm to bargain, as we found
in 33 of the 88 cases we reviewed, a Gissel bargaining order is a
more serious remedy. 

\27 We identified some firms as having received a comprehensive
Board-ordered remedy for more than one of these reasons. 

\28 A broad cease and desist order also serves as the basis for
initiating contempt proceedings if the firm commits additional
violations.  By contrast, if a narrow order has been issued and the
challenged conduct is not covered, an entirely new ULP proceeding may
be necessary. 

\29 While an order to cease and desist 10 or more types of unlawful
actions appeared to us to indicate a more serious violator, this does
not trigger any special Board remedy. 

\30 We did not include all cases in which the entire bargaining unit
was affected, in which there are often more than 20 workers.  This is
because NLRB officials told us that they did not have reliable data
on the number of employees in bargaining units for which remedies
were ordered. 

\31 Limitations in the NLRB's databases made a comprehensive search
and analysis for recidivist violators too time-consuming to complete
during this assignment. 

\32 History of violations here refers to a firm found to have
violated the NLRA in at least one other case since 1980. 


   INFORMATION ON FEDERAL
   CONTRACTORS COULD ENHANCE NLRB
   ENFORCEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Contract payments may be withheld from federal contractors who have
failed to comply with a Board order to restore wages or benefits. 
This means of collection is referred to as an administrative
offset.\33 NLRB officials told us that using administrative offset
could help NLRB settle with violators more quickly and avoid a
lengthy contempt proceeding.  Administrative offset could also result
in cost savings to NLRB and the government through reduced litigation
as well as more timely restitution to workers.  However, NLRB has not
been able to use administrative offset as widely as it would like
because the agency lacks information to identify which violators
receive federal contracts. 

Coordination between NLRB and GSA would be necessary if NLRB is to
use administrative offset to enhance NLRB enforcement.  Through
administrative offset, NLRB could notify a contracting agency to
withhold contract dollars to a violator of NLRA if the violator
refuses to comply with NLRB's order in paying back wages or restoring
benefits.  NLRB officials told us that administrative offset could be
particularly helpful to NLRB in its efforts to recover funds owed by
smaller companies and companies that are being liquidated or shutting
down their operations. 

NLRB has not been able to use administrative offset as widely as it
would like because the agency lacks the information to identify which
violators had federal contracts.  Currently, NLRB does not use a
corporate identification number in any of its databases that could be
recognized by GSA to identify violators with federal contracts.  NLRB
officials, however, told us that they see the importance of some form
of identification number and are exploring this matter in their
current efforts to develop a new database.  The new database is
intended to combine data across several databases that NLRB now
maintains.  It will track a case from the filing of a charge to the
issuance of a decision or, when relevant, an appeal. 


--------------------
\33 Administrative offset was successfully used recently in an NLRB
case, although the offset did not involve a government contractor. 
The Treasury Department withheld from the payment of an award that
Alaska Pulp Corporation had won against the U.S.  Forest Service the
same amount that NLRB determined the firm owed its employees as a
result of various ULPs.  The government may use administrative offset
to withhold money it owes when the party to whom the money is owed
has a debt to the government.  It was reasoned that money owed to
employees as a result of a ULP could be treated as the equivalent of
a debt owed to the United States because NLRB was the only party that
could legally pursue collection and NLRB was acting not as a
collection agent but as the enforcer of federal labor laws. 


   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Federal contracts have been awarded to employers who have violated
NLRA.  We found that 80 firms violated the act and received over $23
billion, about 13 percent of the $182 billion in federal contracts
awarded in fiscal year 1993.  The Board cases that we examined
indicate a range of violations committed and remedies ordered that
affect nearly 1,000 individual workers and thousands of additional
workers represented in 12 bargaining units.  The cases involved 15
firms that might be considered more serious violators based on
several criteria, including that the firm received what we considered
to be a comprehensive Board-ordered remedy. 

NLRB's enforcement of the act could be enhanced by collecting
judgments against violators from federal contract awards. 
Coordination with GSA to identify violators with federal contracts,
however, would be necessary if such actions are to be taken.  While
NLRB officials recognize the importance of being able to identify
labor violators who receive federal contracts, they have yet to
approach GSA because they did not know the extent to which federal
contracts dollars went to violators. 

We recommend that the NLRB Chairman and General Counsel and the
Administrator of GSA develop an information arrangement approach to
facilitate the identification of violators who receive federal
contracts. 


   NLRB COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We discussed the results of our work with key officials from NLRB and
have incorporated their comments where appropriate.  These officials
generally agreed with our methodology for identifying NLRA violators
with federal contracts.  They also agreed with our approach to
characterizing Board cases, although they did not comment on our
criteria to identify serious violators because we developed these
criteria from our case review.  NLRB officials also agreed with our
recommendation for improving compliance of federal contractors with
NLRA and told us that they have already begun to act on it.  NLRB
officials told us they will soon issue written guidance concerning
the expanded use of administrative offset, providing NLRB regional
offices specific directions for obtaining assistance from GSA in
identifying federal contractors. 


   GSA COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

We also discussed the results of our work with GSA officials and have
incorporated their comments where appropriate.  GSA officials said
that they see no major difficulty in coordinating with NLRB to
identify which violators receive federal contracts so that contract
payments may be withheld through administrative offset.  These
officials, however, raised concerns that the discussion of debarment
as a remedy was inadequate, failing to consider its appropriateness
or implementation.  We told GSA officials that this report does not
explore issues related to how debarment of federal contractors might
be implemented.  If the Congress determines debarment to be an
appropriate response, implementation concerns such as those raised by
GSA could be addressed at that time.  Additionally, GSA officials
suggested that the feasibility of checking firms' compliance with
labor laws as part of the pre-award contract clearance process be
explored. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to the NLRB Chairman and General
Counsel, the Administrator of GSA, the Secretary of Labor, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, relevant
congressional committees, and interested parties.  We also will make
copies available to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please call Charlie Jeszeck, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7036 or
Jackie Baker Werth, Project Manager, at (202) 512-7070.  Other major
contributors include Cheryl Gordon, Wayne Turowski, Ronni Schwartz,
and Danah Kozma. 

Sincerely yours,

Linda G.  Morra
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

We were asked to identify the extent to which violators of NLRA
include federal contractors.  More specifically, we were asked to
identify characteristics associated with (1) these federal
contractors and (2) their NLRA violations.  In addition, we were
asked to identify ways to improve compliance of federal contractors
with NLRA.  We

  matched NLRB case data (fiscal years 1993 and 1994) with the
     database of federal contractors maintained by GSA, referred to
     as the FPDS (fiscal year 1993);

  verified by telephone that matched firms had federal contracts;

  reviewed Board decisions and U.S.  Court of Appeals decisions if a
     Board decision was appealed to identify characteristics of the
     violations;

  analyzed the FPDS for characteristics of the contractors; and

  met with NLRB officials to explore ways to improve compliance of
     federal contractors with NLRA. 


   MATCHING CASE DATA FROM NLRB
   WITH FPDS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1


      BACKGROUND ON DATABASES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

To determine which violators of the act were federal contractors, we
matched case data from NLRB with FPDS, a database of federal
contractors maintained by GSA.  No single database at NLRB tracks all
cases from the initial charge until their final resolution.  Instead,
NLRB has several databases that track cases at different stages of
processing.  We used the Executive Secretary's database, because it
tracks all cases that go before the five-member Board.  Many of these
cases were first heard by an ALJ after an investigation by the Office
of the General Counsel's regional staff had determined the case had
merit.\34 We also used this database because it is small enough to
manually match against the much larger FPDS.\35

With fiscal year 1994 data, figure I.1 shows the relatively low
percentage (about 4 percent) of over 30,000 closed ULP cases that
were reviewed by the Board; virtually all cases are withdrawn,
dismissed, or informally settled without being reviewed by the
Board.\36

   Figure I.1:  Very Few ULP Cases
   Are Reviewed by Board

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  These include ULP cases against both employers and unions. 

Source:  Fifty-Ninth Annual Report by the National Labor Relations
Board for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1994. 

We looked at the Executive Secretary's database for decisions on ULP
cases against firms that were issued by the Board over a 2-year
period (fiscal years 1993-94).  This came to a total of 1,493 cases. 
However, the violation itself may have been committed more than a
year before the Board decision because of the length of time it takes
for cases to be processed by NLRB.\37

To obtain data on federal contractors, we used FPDS, which tracks
business entities receiving over $25,000 in federal funding in
exchange for goods and services provided.\38 After determining that
it would have been too cumbersome to use more than one year of FPDS
data, we selected fiscal year 1993 because this was the most current
data available at the time we initiated this review.  The FPDS for
1993 alone contained almost 200,000 contracts and 500,000 contract
actions,\39 tracking about $182 billion in federal contracts received
by over 57,000 parent firms.\40 Because any violation may have been
committed more than a year before the Board decision, firms we
identified as violators per Board decisions issued in fiscal years
1993 and 1994 may not have been receiving federal contracts at the
same time they committed the violation. 


--------------------
\34 If an ALJ decision is not contested by either party, the Board's
decision only affirms the ALJ decision so that it can be enforced. 
In some instances, the Board might issue a decision without an ALJ
hearing, referred to as a summary judgment.  For example, the Board
might issue a summary judgment because the firm failed to answer the
Office of the General Counsel's complaint or refused to bargain in
order to challenge the Board's certification of the bargaining unit
(referred to as a certification test).  Motions for summary judgment
can only be filed in situations where there are no factual issues
warranting a hearing.  We included Board decisions that were summary
judgments in our review if the Board found that the firm had
committed ULPs. 

\35 NLRB has two other databases:  (1) the Case Handling Information
Processing System (CHIPS) database.  This database captures data on
all charges filed in the regions; however, these data are not
necessarily updated once a case goes to the Board for review.  (2) A
database that tracks all cases that were reviewed by the U.S.  Court
of Appeals, either because they were appealed by the firm or NLRB
requested a review in order to enforce the Board's decision. 

\36 Many cases are informally settled because NLRB stresses voluntary
resolution in order to improve labor-management relations and to
reduce litigation and related case handling.  An informal settlement
consists simply of a commitment on the part of the charged party to
remedy the alleged ULP in exchange for withdrawal or dismissal of the
charge.
A charge may be withdrawn for several reasons.  When the
investigation reveals no violation of the statute or a lack of
jurisdiction by the Board, the charging party will be asked to
withdraw the charge.  The NLRB may notify the charging party that,
absent withdrawal, the charge will be dismissed.  In other cases, the
parties may have reached an agreement that includes the withdrawal of
all charges, with the consent of the regional director.
A charge may be dismissed for numerous reasons, including
insufficient evidence to support the allegations or lack of
cooperation by the charging party.  Any dismissed charge can be
appealed to the NLRB General Counsel. 

\37 In National Labor Relations Board:  Action Needed to Improve
Case-Processing Time at Headquarters (GAO/HRD-91-29, Jan.  7, 1991),
we found that decisions for most cases were made within one year from
the date the case was assigned to a Board member.  However, about 10
percent of the cases took from over 3 to more than 7 years to decide. 
Further, these data do not capture time elapsed before a case is sent
to the Board for review.  Our analysis included both ULP and
representation cases. 

\38 This database compiles information from the Individual Contract
Action Reports (SF 279) completed by staff in the contracting agency. 
GSA also tracks contract awards under $25,000 in a separate database
capturing only summary information, which is referred to as the
Summary Contract Action Report (SF 281).  We did not include this
database of smaller contract awards in our analysis. 

\39 Contract actions refer to any activity (for example, purchase
order, delivery order) involving appropriated funds. 

\40 Seven percent of contract dollars recorded in the FPDS are not
linked to a parent firm. 


      THE MANUAL MATCHING
      PROCEDURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2

Because the NLRB databases did not use corporate identification
numbers, this precluded an automated matching procedure, and we had
to manually match these data.  We manually compared each firm name in
the smaller Executive Secretary's database with the larger FPDS,
identifying those firm names that were identical or nearly identical. 
Because firms may split up, merge, subcontract, operate subsidiaries,
or change names, the same firm might have appeared under different
names in the Executive Secretary's database and the FPDS and thereby
escaped our detection. 

Through manually matching the databases, we identified 162 firm names
that were identical or nearly identical, involving 176 cases because
some firms had more than one case.  We eliminated all but one-half of
these cases (88 cases) involving 80 as firms with both violations and
federal contracts.  This represents 6 percent of the 1,493 cases
decided by the Board during fiscal year 1993 and 1994.  How cases
were eliminated is described below.  (See fig.  I.2.)

   Figure I.2:  Reasons for
   Eliminating Board Cases From
   Review

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Twenty-seven percent of cases were eliminated because the
Board decision or U.S.  Court of Appeals decision was in favor of the
firm.  This category also includes 3 cases in which there was a
formal settlement and 6 cases in which the Board's decision was only
a ruling on a motion, such as a firm's motion for the case to be
dismissed. 

Twelve percent of cases were eliminated because the firm went out of
business or relocated.  This category includes firms for which
location information in the Executive Secretary's database or FPDS
was incomplete or inaccurate. 

Eleven percent of cases were eliminated because the telephone
verification revealed the firm listed in the Executive Secretary's
database was not the same firm as listed in FPDS. 


      FACTORS LIMITING THE
      DETECTION OF NLRA VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3

In addition to the likely underestimation caused by the manual
matching procedure, other factors limit the number of NLRA violations
detected regardless of whether or not they involve federal
contractors.  The cases we examined represent violations only over a
2-year period.  Further, NLRA is different from most federal statutes
in that, rather than imposing regulatory requirements on firms or
defining benefits for workers, it establishes rights and obligations
of firms, workers, and unions with respect to collective bargaining. 
Neither the Board nor the General Counsel of NLRB has the authority
to investigate alleged ULPs on its own initiative.  The filing of a
ULP charge by employees or their representatives is necessary before
an investigation can be initiated, yet some workers may be unaware of
their rights or choose not to exercise them.  As already mentioned,
many firms are involved in cases that are withdrawn or settled and
our analyses do not include such cases in assessing violations
committed, remedies ordered, and number of workers affected. 


   VERIFYING BY TELEPHONE TO
   ENSURE MATCHED FIRMS HAD
   CONTRACTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

To ensure that the firm listed in the Executive Secretary's database
was the same firm listed in FPDS, we telephoned the firm at the
location where the labor violation occurred.  We verified that the
firm name and location identified in both databases referred to the
same firm. 

We eliminated from our matched firms those for which the telephone
call revealed that the firm listed in the Executive Secretary's
database was not the same firm as listed in FPDS (11 percent of the
176 cases).  We also eliminated those firms we were unable to verify
because they went out of business or relocated or location
information in the Executive Secretary's database or FPDS was either
incomplete or inaccurate.  That 12 percent of cases were eliminated
for the latter reason contributes to our suggestion that we may be
underestimating the number of firms that are violators.  (See fig. 
I.2.)

All 80 firms included among our final group of violators were
verified by telephone, except for one firm that refused to verify
that it had federal contracts.  However, we included it among our
matched firms because both company name and location in the Executive
Secretary's database matched exactly with FPDS. 


   REVIEWING BOARD DECISIONS AND
   APPEALS CASES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

We next reviewed the Board decisions on these matched firms to
determine whether the firm was a violator as well as to analyze
characteristics associated with the violations.  We also reviewed all
U.S.  Court of Appeals decisions for all of our matched firms when
appropriate so that modifications to the Board's decision were
reflected in our analysis.  We eliminated from this analysis those
matched firms that (1) reached a formal settlement with NLRB,\41 (2)
prevailed either in the Board decision or subsequently in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals, or (3) had a Board decision that was only a ruling
on a motion by the firm or NLRB.  For example, a firm might have
filed a motion for dismissal of the case.  All together, 27 percent
of the 176 cases were eliminated after reviewing the Board decisions
and appeals cases.  (See fig.  I.2.)

Our review of Board cases revealed the range of violations and
remedies.  We categorized each case by type of violation and remedy,
as well as number of workers affected if this information was
contained in the Board decision.\42 This review also helped us
develop criteria to identify firms that might be considered more
serious violators. 

In order to identify firms with a history of labor violations, we
requested NLRB staff to search for Board decisions issued before
fiscal years 1993 and 1994 involving the 15 firms we had identified
as serious violators.  Limitations of NLRB's databases made a
comprehensive search for recidivists among all 80 firms too
time-consuming to complete during this assignment.  These data
limitations also precluded NLRB from providing a complete history
even for those violators we identified as serious.  We reviewed the
Board decisions provided by NLRB staff and checked to determine if
these cases had been modified by the U.S.  Court of Appeals. 


--------------------
\41 Neither informal or formal settlements were included in our
analysis because any form of settlement is viewed as the most
effective means to improve the parties' relationship and focus Board
resources on other cases.  A formal settlement is a written agreement
containing a Board order specifying that certain remedial action will
be undertaken.  It is typically used when the firm has a history of
prior ULPs or there is a likelihood of recurrence of the ULP charged. 

\42 NLRB staff told us that the Board decision was most reliable for
capturing information on violations, remedies, and number of workers
affected.  While databases maintained by NLRB may have more detailed
information about a case than the Board decision, these data are not
necessarily updated once a cases goes to the Board for review. 


   ANALYZING FPDS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

We analyzed FPDS for characteristics of federal contractors that we
found to have violations.  For those matched firms that we had
verified, we used variations of the firm name as they appeared in
FPDS and corresponding corporate identification codes to retrieve all
contracts for fiscal year 1993.\43 We found that it was necessary to
report contract data for violators at the parent firm level because
(1) the location where the violation occurred did not necessarily
appear in FPDS and (2) there was no way to determine which contractor
establishment code (CEC) was associated with that location.  However,
to ensure that all contract information retrieved using GSA's
corporate identification codes went to that parent firm, we checked
that the names of divisions, plants, and subsidiaries that were
retrieved were, in fact, affiliated with the parent firm.\44

Using FPDS, we identified characteristics of the federal contracts. 
We examined, for example, total contract dollars that went to each
violator, federal agencies that they contracted with, the industry in
which the firms are engaged, and the products and services these
firms provided.  Total contract dollars would not include dollars
that may have been awarded by primary contractors to subcontractors
with violations because we could not identify these subcontractors. 

FPDS classifies the type of industry the firm is engaged in using
standard industrial classification (SIC) codes, a federal
classification system.  To capture what products and services a
federal contractor provides, FPDS includes product and services
codes.  In addition to major categories, more detailed codes are
available under both the SIC and product and services coding systems. 
These detailed codes were useful to our efforts in developing key
contract information by individual firm, as reported in appendix III. 
We also compared contract data for violators on many of these
characteristics with all federal contractors. 

Although workforce size and annual sales data were not included on
the version of FPDS we used in this review, GSA provided these data
at our request.  These data are current as of fiscal year 1994.\45
Because GSA did not have data for all 80 firms, we filled in missing
data on workforce size with information gathered during our telephone
calls to verify matched firms.  The firms provided the most current
data available, typically fiscal year 1995 data.  Of the 80 firms, we
had data on workforce size for 77 firms and annual sales for 64
firms. 


--------------------
\43 GSA uses corporate identification codes that are a derivative of
the Dun & Bradstreet codes for identifying companies.  GSA relies on
two sets of numbers:  (1) CEC, referring to a contractor
establishment code, and (2) ULTICEC, referring to the "ultimate"
parent firm of the contractor.  We first retrieved all contract data
by the CEC codes corresponding to variations of the firm name.  We
subsequently retrieved all contract data by the ULTICEC codes
associated with each CEC code that had already been retrieved.  In
this way, we ensured that federal contract data for each violator
were comprehensive by its parent firm. 

\44 For this purpose, we referred to the 1993 Directory of Corporate
Affiliations.  (New Providence, New Jersey:  National Register
Publishing, 1993). 

\45 Data on workforce size and annual sales are provided to GSA by
Dun & Bradstreet and are updated on a schedule that takes into
account a firm's fiscal year as well as major changes in the
corporate environment. 


   EXPLORING WAYS TO IMPROVE
   COMPLIANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

To explore ways to improve compliance of federal contractors with
NLRA, we met with NLRB officials in its Division of Enforcement
Litigation.  We also met with computer and technical staff in NLRB
headquarters and in its Philadelphia and San Francisco regional
offices. 

We conducted our work between August 1994 and September 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


DATA ON VIOLATIONS, REMEDIES, AND
FEDERAL CONTRACTORS WITH LABOR
VIOLATIONS
========================================================== Appendix II

The following figures illustrate the types of violations committed,
remedies ordered, and characteristics of federal contractors that
violated NLRA as reflected in Board decisions issued during fiscal
years 1993 and 1994.  Eighty-eight NLRB cases involved 80 firms (some
with more than one case) with both NLRA violations and federal
contracts. 

In reporting on characteristics of federal contractors, including
contract dollars received, we are referring to the parent firm.  The
violations may have occurred at only one site or facility, possibly
within a division or subsidiary of the parent firm.  Only fiscal year
1993 contract data from FPDS are reported. 

Figures II.1 through II.3 present data on types of violations
committed and remedies ordered. 

   Figure II.1:  Types of NLRA
   Violations Committed by Federal
   Contractors (Fiscal Years 1993
   and 1994)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Each case may involve more than one type of violation.  Five
percent or less of cases involved 8(a)(2) or 8(a)(4) violations. 

Section 8(a) provides that it is a violation or a ULP for an employer
to
  (1)interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
     their rights to self-organize;
  (3)discriminate in hiring or any term or condition of employment to
     encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; or
  (5)refuse to bargain collectively with the majority representative
     of employees. 

   Figure II.2:  Types of
   Board-Ordered Remedies
   Involving Federal Contractors
   (Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Each case may involve multiple remedies.  Reinstated workers
are workers who were unlawfully fired.  Restored workers are workers
who were subjected to another unfavorable change in job status; for
example, they were transferred or not hired in the first place
because of activities for or association with a union. 

   Figure II.3:  Additional Types
   of Board-Ordered Remedies
   Involving Federal Contractors
   (Fiscal Years 1993 and 1994)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Each case may involve multiple remedies. 

Figures II.4 through II.8 present data on the federal contractors
that violated NLRA.  Some of these figures compare the
characteristics of the violators with all firms that contract with
the federal government. 

   Figure II.4:  Concentration of
   Contract Dollars Received by
   NLRA Violators Compared With
   All Federal Contractors (Fiscal
   Year 1993)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Eighty firms have both NLRA violations and federal contracts
compared with more than 57,000 federal contractors in total (both
figures are by parent firm).  Seven percent of contract dollars
recorded in FPDS are not linked to a parent firm, possibly affecting
the concentration of contract dollars to all federal contractors. 
Because of rounding, the percentage of contract dollars by NLRA
violators does not total to 100 percent. 

   Figure II.5:  Percent of
   Contract Dollars to Federal
   Contractors That Violated NLRA
   Compared With All Federal
   Contractors, by Agency (Fiscal
   Year 1993)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.6:  Percent of
   Contract Dollars to Federal
   Contractors That Violated NLRA
   Compared With All Federal
   Contractors, by Primary
   Industry (Fiscal Year 1993)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.7:  Workforce Size of
   Federal Contractors That
   Violated NLRA (Fiscal Years
   1994 or 1995)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Based on 77 of the 80 firms with NLRA violations and federal
contracts.  Although workforce size data were not included on the
version of FPDS we used for this review, GSA provided these data at
our request.  These data are current as of fiscal year 1994.  Because
GSA did not have data for all 80 firms, we filled in missing data on
workforce size with information gathered during our telephone calls
to verify matched firms.  The firms provided the most current data
available, typically fiscal year 1995 data. 

   Figure II.8:  Annual Sales of
   Federal Contractors That
   Violated NLRA (Fiscal Year
   1994)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Based on 64 of the 80 firms with NLRA violations and federal
contracts.  Although annual sales data were not included on the
version of FPDS we were provided, GSA provided these data at our
request.  These data are current as of fiscal year 1994. 


KEY FEDERAL CONTRACT AND VIOLATION
INFORMATION FOR ALL 80 FIRMS WITH
LABOR VIOLATIONS
========================================================= Appendix III

This appendix provides information on the 80 firms that have both
NLRA violations and federal contracts.\46 In reporting fiscal year
1993 contract dollars as well as primary contract agency and products
and services, we are referring to the parent firm, which is
identified if it is different than the name of the violator.  A
violation may have occurred at only one site or facility, possibly
within a division or subsidiary of the parent firm.  These violations
apply to cases decided by the Board during fiscal years 1993 and
1994.  We did not verify information on primary contract agency and
products and services that is entered into FPDS by the contracting
agency. 


--------------------
\46 Eight-one violators actually appear in this listing because two
violators are part of the same parent firm; Monfort of Colorado,
Inc., and Northern States Beef are both part of ConAgra, Inc. 
Therefore, contract dollars of about $117.4 million to ConAgra, Inc.,
are referred to twice in this appendix


   AERO METAL FORMS, INC.
   (17CA15539)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Contracts with the Air Force to provide airframe structural
components ($354,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Laid off worker during an organizing campaign based upon its
     suspicion of worker's union activities. 

  Discharged a second worker because she refused to fabricate
     evidence in order to establish a "sham" defense for the unlawful
     layoff of the first worker. 

  Incidents occurred in Wichita, Kansas, where firm is based. 


   THE AEROSPACE CORPORATION
   (31CA19441)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Contracts with the Air Force to provide research and development for
space science ($303,185,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to furnish information to union in connection with
     grievance filed by an employee. 

  Incidents occurred in El Segundo, California, where the firm is
     based. 


   AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND
   TELEGRAPH COMPANY (AT&T)
   (07CA32168)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Contracts with Defense Information Systems, GSA, and the Navy to
provide telephone and/or communication services ($1,430,462,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to provide information to union about subcontracting some
     of its work. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Oak Park, Michigan, at one of
     its divisions. 


   BARTLETT NUCLEAR, INC.
   (31CA18203)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

Contracts with the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide maintenance
services ($120,000). 

Highlights from the Board decision include: 

  Abolished the jobs of 23 workers who would not abandon their
     economic strike, then put these workers on probation. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Diablo Canyon, California. 


   BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORP.
   (BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC.)
   (11CA12772)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical
and surgical instruments, equipment, and supplies ($14,846,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged two workers because of union activity. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Marion, North Carolina. 


   BEAIRD INDUSTRIES, INC.
   (TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INC.)
   (15CA11334)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6

Contracts with the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers to provide ship
repair ($5,621,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged four workers and took numerous unlawful actions to
     discourage union activity during a lawful ULP strike. 

  Prohibited workers from distributing prounion materials in
     nonworking areas, solicited workers to sign a petition to oust
     the union, and threatened retaliation against union workers. 

  Refused to bargain with union. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Shreveport, Louisiana. 


   BEECH AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC.
   (RAYTHEON CORPORATION)
   (15CA12067)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:7

Contracts with the Army to provide guided missile equipment
($3,509,586,000). 

Highlights of Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with union following union certification. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Pensacola, Florida. 


   BEVERLY ENTERPRISES
   (06CA19444)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:8

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($10,268,000). 

Highlights of Board decision include: 

  Discharged 16 workers during union organizing campaigns at 23
     facilities throughout the nation. 

  Took numerous unlawful actions to thwart union activity, including
     threatening discipline against workers for union activity. 

  History of violations. 


   CASCADE GENERAL, INC.
   (036CA06774)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:9

Contracts with the Navy for maintenance and repair of ships, small
craft, or docks and Maritime Administration for ship repair
($2,458,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to recognize union. 

  Did not honor collective bargaining agreement. 

  Incidents occurred in Portland, Oregon, where the firm is based. 


   CASTLE NURSING HOMES, INC.
   (08CA25070)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:10

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($3,008,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Prohibited organizational activities for any group on the company
     premises without permission. 

  Incident occurred in Millersburg, Ohio, where the firm is based. 


   CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
   (CATERAIR HOLDINGS CORPORATION)
   (31CA18702)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:11

Contracts with the Army to provide food services ($133,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged 289 workers by permanently replacing them during a
     lawful ULP strike. 

  Circulated union decertification petitions, promising workers
     economic benefits if the union is decertified and threatening
     them with economic harm if the union is not decertified. 

  Incidents occurred at three facilities in Los Angeles, California. 


   CENTERVILLE NURSING HOME CORP.
   (01CA30105)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:12

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($4,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain in good faith with union by refusing to
     implement mandated wage increases. 

  Incident occurred in Centerville, Massachusetts. 


   CHEVRON USA PRODUCTS CO.
   (CHEVRON CORPORATION)
   (32CA13548)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:13

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide
petroleum-based liquid propellants ($321,028,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with union. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Richmond, California. 


   CHRYSLER CORPORATION
   (25CA22090)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:14

Contracts with the Air Force for modification of aircraft components,
GSA to provide trucks and Army to provide electronic equipment
($369,083,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with the union. 

  Incident occurred in a facility in Kokomo, Indiana. 


   CITY CHEMICAL CORPORATION
   (22CA18532)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:15

Contracts with the Navy to provide chemicals ($67,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Failed to pay wages due to 10 workers. 

  Failed to bargain collectively in good faith with union. 

  Did not remit union dues or remit welfare and pension payments to
     the union's funds. 

  Incidents occurred in Jersey City, New Jersey, where the firm is
     based. 


   CLA-VAL COMPANY
   (GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES CO.)
   (21CA27747)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:16

Contracts with the Navy to provide powered valves ($1,503,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discriminated against a worker by giving him a negative evaluation,
     recommending discipline, placing him on probation, denying him a
     merit pay increase, and suspending him for a week without pay
     based on the worker's union activity. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Perris, California. 


   COMARCO, INC.
   (21CA29487)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:17

Contracts with the Navy to provide management support services
($23,356,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain and provide requested information to union
     necessary to bargain. 

  Firm is based in Yorba Linda, California. 


   COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC.
   (12CA14619)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:18

Contracts with the Defense Communication Agency to provide
maintenance services ($3,874,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Failed and refused to recognize union. 

  Told workers that it would be futile for them to support a union
     and polled its workers concerning their union membership and
     support. 

  Firm is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. 


   CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY
   (CONSOL ENERGY INC.)
   (10CA25715)
   (06CA23857)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:19

Contracts with the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide solid fuels
($25,059,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  Refused to furnish information to the union necessary to bargain
     with the firm at a facility at Tackett Creek, Tennessee. 

  In a case involving a mine in Pennsylvania, Board stated that the
     employer has a history of violations and "in at least three
     cases the Board has recommended broad cease and desist
     language."


   DETROIT EDISON CO.
   (07CA32263)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:20

Contracts with the Internal Revenue Service and Army to provide
electricity ($8,294,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Bypassed the union bargaining committee and dealt directly with
     individual workers. 

  Withdrew recognition and refused to bargain with union at one site. 

  Incidents occurred in several Michigan facilities. 


   DUKE UNIVERSITY
   (11CA15030)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:21

Contracts with the National Institutes of Health for acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) research and Navy for basic defense
research ($14,954,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Did not recognize and engage in collective bargaining with the
     union. 

  University based in Durham, North Carolina. 


   DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
   (03CA17273)
   (04CA18737)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:22

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide
petroleum-based liquid propellants ($36,207,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  Denied to a worker his right to be represented by union when he was
     subject to an investigation at a facility in Tonawanda, New
     York. 

  At a facility in Deepwater, New Jersey, dominated the formation and
     administration of committees and unilaterally implemented the
     proposals of these committees without affording the union an
     opportunity to bargain. 

  Discriminatorily prohibited workers from using the e-mail system
     for distributing union literature and notices. 


   DURBIN POULTRY COMPANY,
   MARSHALL
   (DURBIN MARSHALL FOOD CORP.)
   (15CA11268)
   (15CA11528)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:23

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat,
poultry, or fish ($3,499,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  Discharged four workers including a supervisor who refused to
     commit ULPs and a worker for testifying at an NLRB hearing. 

  Took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union activity
     including threatening workers with closing the plant if the
     union was selected. 

  Board implemented a broad cease and desist order as "a result of
     the widespread and egregious unlawful acts committed by the
     employer."

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. 


   ERIE ENGINEERED
   PRODUCTS, INC.
   (03CA17405)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:24

Contracts with the Navy to provide special shipping and storage
containers ($1,208,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Unlawfully delayed issuance of paychecks, payment of health
     insurance premiums, and payment of fees to 401(k) administrator. 

  Incident occurred in North Tonawanda, New York, where the firm is
     based. 


   EXIDE CORPORATION
   (04CA20979)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:25

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide rechargeable
batteries ($1,139,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Threatened a worker with unspecified reprisals because of her union
     activity. 

  Discriminatorily refused to give above mentioned worker's daughter
     part-time work. 

  The firm is based in Reading, Pennsylvania. 


   FIBER PRODUCTS
   (FPC HOLDINGS, INC.)
   (05CA23097)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:26

Contracts with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to provide
fabricated materials ($498,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Terminated two workers because of union activities. 

  The firm is based in Baltimore, Maryland. 


   FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.
   (25CA21795)
   (25CA22446)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:27

Contracts with the Air Force to provide household furniture
($306,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  During an organizing campaign, the employer took numerous unlawful
     actions to discourage union activity, including threatening its
     workers with more onerous work rates, loss of benefits,
     discharge, and plant closure if they selected union. 

  Withheld $50 of workers' pay as simulated union dues, requiring
     workers to sign a receipt for this money acknowledging their
     agreement with employer's antiunion position. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in New Paris, Indiana. 


   FLUOR DANIEL, INC.
   (FLUOR CORPORATION)
   (26CA13842)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:28

Contracts with the Department of Energy to repair government property
($508,474,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discriminatorially refused to hire 53 applicants because of their
     union affiliation. 

  Discharged one worker for refusing to cross a picket line. 

  Board decision stated that "there is strong evidence of union
     animus in this case."

  Incidents occurred at three facilities in Kentucky. 


   HARPER PACKING COMPANY, INC.
   (04CA19573)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:29

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide packing and
gasket materials ($110,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Threatened workers with plant closure. 

  Subjected worker's work to increased scrutiny because worker filed
     an ULP charge. 

  The firm is based in Bridgeport, New Jersey. 


   HARVARD INDUSTRIES, INC.
   (FEL CORPORATION)
   (10CA25329)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:30

Contracts with the Navy to provide electronic equipment
($18,693,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged a worker during an organizing campaign because of union
     activities. 

  Threatened workers with loss of jobs if the union successfully
     organized the workers. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Sevierville, Tennessee. 


   HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT
   CORP.
   (01CA28519)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:31

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($4,674,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged five workers because of union activity. 

  Interrogated a worker about her union activity and that of other
     workers. 

  Incidents occurred in the Valley View Nursing Home in Lenox,
     Massachusetts. 


   HOSPITALITY CARE CENTER
   (NEW ASSOCIATES)
   (22CA18606)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:32

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($220,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Ceased to make contractually required payments to the union's
     welfare and legal funds, and remit dues and initiation fees to
     union. 

  Incident occurred in Newark, New Jersey, where the firm is based. 


   INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
   (11CA14781)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:33

Contracts with GSA to provide stationery and record forms
($32,183,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Interrogated and harassed workers regarding union activities during
     an organizing campaign. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Raleigh, North Carolina. 


   KAYDON CORPORATION
   (07CA33792)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:34

Contracts with the Army to supply bearings ($8,341,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to supply the union with requested information necessary to
     bargain. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Muskegon, Michigan. 


   KEYDATA SYSTEMS, INC.
   (09CA30895)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:35

Contracts with the Internal Revenue Service to provide data entry
services ($5,311,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with the union. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Beckley, West Virginia. 


   LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS
   (LAIDLAW, INC.)
   (27CA11621)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:36

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to remove hazardous waste
and the Department of the Army to maintain or repair structures
($55,711,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to reinstate five workers to their prestrike positions when
     they offered to return to work. 

  Incident occurred at facilities in Sandy and Pleasant Grove, Utah. 


   LANE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
   (LANE INDUSTRIES, INC.)
   (05CA22885)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:37

Contracts with the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers to construct dams
and other facilities ($15,967,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged three workers for their union activities. 

  Opposed the union's attempt to organize and represent workers by
     threatening workers with a reduction in wages if they selected
     the union and intimidating workers in other ways. 

  The Board issued a bargaining order because the "coercive and
     discriminatory conduct has interfered with the holding of a fair
     and free election."

  The firm is based in Meriden, Connecticut. 


   LARO MAINTENANCE CORP.
   (29CA15196)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:38

Contracts with GSA to provide maintenance or repairs of mechanical
equipment ($7,986,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to hire 13 incumbent workers for a new work location
     because these workers were represented by a union. 

  Incident occurred at several facilities in New York. 


   LEACH CORPORATION
   (LEACH INTERNATIONAL, INC.)
   (21CA28385)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:39

Contracts with the Air Force to provide electrical and electronic
equipment ($2,981,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to provide the union with requested information necessary
     to bargain and to recognize the union. 

  Incident occurred at facilities in Los Angeles and Buena Park,
     California. 


   LEON'S MAID & JANITORIAL
   SERVICE, ROSIE M.B.
   (27CA11740)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:40

Contracts with the Federal Aviation Administration to provide
custodial and janitorial services ($161,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Failed to bargain in good faith with the union. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Aurora, Colorado. 


   LONG DISTANCE USA/SPRINT
   (SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO.)
   (18CA11922)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:41

Contracts with GSA for telephone and/or communication services
($229,952,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to approve posting of union-related material on a bulletin
     board. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Winona, Minnesota. 


   LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
   CENTER
   (13CA31714)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:42

Contracts with the National Institutes of Health to provide
biomedical research ($448,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Threatened workers with unspecified reprisals if they engaged in
     protected concerted activity. 

  The medical center is located in Maywood, Illinois. 


   MARRIOTT CORPORATION
   (02CA24526)
   (31CA19652)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:43

Contracts with the Air Force to provide building maintenance services
($7,066,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  Suspended and then discharged three workers in a facility in
     Palisades, New York, during an organizing campaign because of
     union involvement. 

  Promised improved wages, benefits, and remedies to grievances to
     discourage worker support for union. 

  Prohibited workers from wearing union insignia at a facility in Los
     Angeles, California. 


   MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
   CORPORATION\47
   (21CA27479)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:44

Contracts with the Navy and Air Force to provide aircraft
($7,654,628,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Transferred 32 workers out of the bargaining unit at a facility in
     Huntington Beach, California, without obtaining the union's
     agreement. 


--------------------
\47 Very recently, the U.S.  Court of Appeals (D.C.  Circuit,
September 13, 1995) remanded the NLRB cases against McDonnell Douglas
Corporation to the Board.  The U.S.  Court of Appeals asked the Board
to reconsider its decision.  The Board's additional review could
affect McDonnell Douglas Corporation's classification as a labor law
violator. 


   MIDWEST CANVAS CORPORATION
   (13CA31860)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:45

Contracts with the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers to provide plastics
and other fabricated materials ($148,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to execute the agreement made with union. 

  Incident occurred in Chicago, Illinois, where the firm is based. 


   MILLARD PROCESSING SERVICES,
   INC.
   (17CA15133)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:46

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide meat, poultry,
or fish ($48,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Unilaterally changed the wages, hours, and other terms and
     conditions of employment during an organizing campaign. 

  Threatened workers with plant closure if union succeeded in
     organizing workers. 

  Incidents occurred in Omaha, Nebraska, where the firm is based. 


   MONARCH SIDNEY
   (MONARCH MACHINE TOOL CO.)
   (09CA30350)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:47

Contracts with the Air Force to provide automated data processing
input, output, and storage devices ($3,938,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with the union. 

  Unilaterally implemented a new attendance policy without
     negotiating with union. 

  Incidents occurred in Sidney, Ohio, where the firm is based. 


   MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC.
   (CONAGRA, INC.)
   (27CA07742)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:48

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat,
poultry, or fish ($117,414,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discriminated against 258 former union workers by applying more
     rigorous hiring criteria when plant reopened in Greeley,
     Colorado. 

  Took numerous unlawful actions against workers to discourage union
     activity, including threatening to close plant. 

  Board issued a broad cease and desist order because of the nature
     and extent of violations. 

  Election set-aside because of firm's conduct. 


   NCR CORPORATION\48
   (09CA30321)
   (09CA30467)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:49

Contracts with the Department of the Army to provide ADP software
($3,828,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  Prohibited workers from either distributing or posting union
     literature during an organizing campaign. 

  Created, dominated, assisted, and interfered with worker
     satisfaction councils. 

  Incidents occurred in Dayton, Ohio, where the firm is based. 


--------------------
\48 Although NCR Corporation is a subsidiary of AT&T, we listed it
separately both because violations were committed within each firm
and contract dollars to NCR could be identified separately from those
going to AT&T. 


   NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE &
   TELEGRAPH COMPANY
   (NYNEX CORPORATION)
   (31CA28028)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:50

Contracts with the Department of the Army to provide telephone and
communication services ($3,391,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Failed and refused to supply the union with requested information
     necessary to bargain. 

  The firm is based in Boston, Massachusetts. 


   NORTHERN STATES BEEF
   (CONAGRA, INC.)
   (30CA12183)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:51

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat,
poultry, or fish ($117,414,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with the union. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Edgar, Wisconsin. 


   ORE-IDA FOODS, INC.
   (HEINZ, H.J.  COMPANY)
   (30CA12558)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:52

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat,
poultry, or fish ($19,721,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with union and to furnish information necessary
     to bargain. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Plover, Wisconsin. 


   OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
   (UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION)
   (09CA27618)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:53

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide candy and
nuts ($14,579,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged three workers during an organizing campaign because of
     union activity. 

  Took numerous unlawful actions to discourage workers from union
     activity during an organizing campaign including "coercively"
     interrogating workers. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Lexington, Kentucky. 


   PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT
   (UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.)
   (34CA05044)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:54

Contracts with the Air Force to provide gas turbines and jet engines
and with the Navy to provide aircraft rotary wings ($3,008,796,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Failed to honor the commitments it gave the union toward resolving
     numerous job design grievances. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Middletown, Connecticut. 


   PUBLIC SERVICE CO.  OF COLORADO
   (27CA11650)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:55

Contracts with the Air Force to provide electricity ($12,424,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Failed to process valid dues-checkoff authorization for three unit
     workers. 

  Unilaterally subcontracted out work without first notifying union
     and giving union opportunity to bargain. 

  Failed to give union timely notice of workers' status from
     temporary to regular worker for 6 months. 

  The utility is based in Denver, Colorado. 


   PUBLIC SERVICE CO.  OF OKLAHOMA
   (17CA16439)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:56

Contracts with GSA to provide electricity ($79,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Issued a disciplinary warning to one worker because he was the
     union shop steward. 

  The utility is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. 


   REYNOLDS METALS CO.
   (09CA29899)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:57

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide packaging and
packing bulk materials and with GSA for office building lease
($5,611,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discriminated against the terms and conditions of employment by
     permitting a former full-time worker (who took time off to be a
     full-time union president) to retroactively bid and obtain a job
     position thereby displacing two other workers who had
     departmental seniority. 

  Incident occurred at facility in Louisville, Kentucky. 


   RHEEM MFG.  CO.
   (PALOMA INC.)
   (10CA26383)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:58

Contracts with GSA to provide space heating equipment and water
heaters ($106,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with union following its certification. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Milledgeville, Georgia. 


   SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
   (27CA12819)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:59

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide dairy foods
and eggs ($1,290,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Told workers that the union steward was filing frivolous
     grievances. 

  Interrogated a worker about whether the worker had filed a
     grievance. 

  Told a worker that there was a "militant union segment" in the
     store. 

  Incidents occurred in Lakewood, Colorado. 


   SHELL CO., PUERTO RICO LIMITED
   (SHELL OIL COMPANY)
   (24CA06335)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:60

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide
petroleum-based liquid propellants ($315,957,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Declared an impasse with the union, then unilaterally implemented
     changes in the wages, hours, and other terms of conditions
     including laying off or terminating seven workers. 

  Refused to supply the union with information necessary to bargain. 

  Unilaterally subcontracted out bargaining unit work. 

  Incidents occurred in Puerto, Rico. 


   SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO.
   (32CA12396)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:61

Contracts with the Defense Logistics Agency to provide chemicals
($1,426,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged a worker because of his union activity. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Emeryville, California. 


   SIMPLEX WIRE & CABLE CO.
   (TYCO INTERNATIONAL LTD.)
   (01CA29899)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:62

Contracts with the Navy to provide fiber optic cables and other cable
wires ($17,023,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged a worker because of union activity. 

  Prohibited workers from engaging in union activities. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Newington, New Hampshire. 


   SIMPSON PAPER CO.
   (SIMPSON INVESTMENT COMPANY)
   (20CA24426)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:63

Contracts with GSA to provide paper and paperboard ($266,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Prohibited workers from wearing anti-employer signs or articles of
     clothing. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Anderson, California. 


   SLOCOMB CO., J.T.
   (34CA05825)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:64

Contracts with the Navy to provide gas turbines and jet engines
($4,627,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Laid off 11 workers due to union organizing activity. 

  Threatened workers with layoff and discharge. 

  Incidents occurred in South Glastonbury, Connecticut, where the
     firm is based. 


   SOMERSET WELDING & STEEL, INC.
   (RIGGS INDUSTRIES, INC.)
   (06CA19922)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:65

Contracts with the Army to provide vehicle brake components
($102,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Threatened workers with plant closure in the event of unionization. 

  Board ordered the firm to hold a second union representation
     election. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Somerset, Pennsylvania. 


   SONY CORP.  OF AMERICA
   (22CA16874)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:66

Contracts with the Army to provide radio and television equipment
($17,341,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Photographed workers and used these photographs for an antiunion
     videotape without the workers' consent. 

  Refused to furnish the union with requested information necessary
     to bargain. 

  Board ordered the firm to hold a new election when the
     circumstances permit. 

  Incidents occurred in several facilities in New Jersey and New
     York. 


   TNT SKYPAK, INC.
   (29CA16046)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:67

Contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation to provide administrative,
mailing, and distribution services ($32,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Solicited worker grievances and promised them that the employer
     would resolve grievances if they did not select union. 

  Interrogated workers regarding their union activities. 

  The firm is based in Garden City, New York. 


   TRI-WAY SECURITY & ESCORT
   SERVICE
   (22CA18210)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:68

Contracts with GSA to provide guard services ($793,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Suspended and then discharged three workers because of union
     activity. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Newark, New Jersey. 


   TRIPLE P SERVICES, INC.
   (11CA15613)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:69

Contracts with the Army to provide custodial services and with the
Navy to provide food services ($6,349,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged a worker and thereafter refused to reinstate her because
     of her union activities. 

  Incident occurred in Mount Olive, North Carolina, where firm is
     based. 


   TURNER CO., INC., RICHARD A.
   (01CA31297)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:70

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide
construction and other utilities ($1,755,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to make payments owed to various funds on behalf of
     employees, including the health and welfare fund and the pension
     fund. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Springfield, Massachusetts. 


   TYSON FOODS, INC.
   (26CA14731)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:71

Contracts with the Department of Agriculture to provide meat,
poultry, or fish ($10,791,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Took numerous unlawful actions to oust the union including
     circulating a decertification petition. 

  Unilaterally implemented changes in wages and working conditions. 

  Stopped bargaining with the union. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Dardanelle, Arizona. 


   UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.
   (32CA13189)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:72

Contracts with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to conduct
studies ($263,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to bargain with union. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Santa Clara, California. 


   UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
   (09CA27597)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:73

Contracts with the Air Force to provide air charter services for
packages ($88,504,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Refused to furnish the union with requested information necessary
     to bargain. 

  Incident occurred at a facility in Obetz, Ohio. 


   URSERY COMPANIES, INC.
   (34CA05756)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:74

Contracts with the Department of Defense to provide custodial and
other housekeeping services ($512,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged three workers during an organizing campaign because of
     their support for the union and to discourage membership in the
     union. 

  Took numerous unlawful actions against workers during an organizing
     campaign including warning them that its records could be
     changed to facilitate their discharge if they continued to
     support the union. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Windsor-Locks, Connecticut. 


   VICTORIAN HEIGHTS HEALTH CARE
   CENTER
   (HEALTH CARE RETIREMENT CORP. 
   AMER.)
   (34CA06079)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:75

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($14,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  The firm took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union
     activity, including refusing to hire one employee and denying
     another employee a wage increase because of their union
     activities. 

  Threatened employees with changes in the terms and conditions of
     employment because of their union membership. 

  Refused to bargain with the union. 

  The current parent firm is Health Care Facilities, based in
     Manchester, Connecticut. 


   WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.--SALT
   LAKE DIVISION
   (WMX TECHNOLOGIES)
   (27CA10940)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:76

Contracts with the Department of Energy for the operation of research
and development facilities ($224,762,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged a worker and took other numerous unlawful actions to
     discourage union activity, including threatening workers with
     loss of current wages and benefits if union were voted in. 

  Created employer-dominated committees during an organizing drive;
     then dissolved these committees after the union lost and filed
     objections to the election. 

  Board issued a broad cease and desist order as well as an order to
     bargain because of the "pervasive and serious nature of
     misconduct."

  Incidents occurred in West Jordan, Utah. 


   WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.
   (05CA22392)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:77

Contracts with the Department of Energy for the operation of
government industrial buildings ($4,918,087,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Laid off four workers. 

  Failed to bargain with the union. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Baltimore, Maryland. 


   WHAYNE SUPPLY CO.
   (25CA22608)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:78

Contracts with the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide diesel
engines and components ($36,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discharged a worker because he refused to cross a picket line. 

  Threatened its workers with discipline up to and including
     discharge if they refused to cross picket line. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Evansville, Indiana. 


   WINDSOR CASTLE HEALTH CARE
   FACILITIES, INC.
   (34CA06259)
   (34CA04597)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:79

Contracts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing
home care ($1,139,000). 

Highlights from Board decisions include: 

  Recognized a union as the exclusive representative of workers when
     this union had not been selected by an "uncoerced" majority of
     workers. 

  Threatened to discharge workers who did not want to be members of
     this union and discharged one worker because she refused to pay
     union dues when she was under no obligation to do so. 

  Board issued a broad cease and desist order because of the
     "pervasive nature" of the violations. 

  After the workers voted in another union, the employer refused to
     bargain or furnish requested information to this union necessary
     to bargain. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in New Haven, Connecticut. 


   WOOLWORTH, F.W.  CO.
   (19CA21256)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:80

Contracts with the Army to provide architects and general engineering
services ($113,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Discriminatorily reduced worker hours and denied holiday, vacation,
     and sick leave requests during a period of a union's boycott. 

  Threatened workers during collective bargaining negotiation, and
     photographed and videotaped workers engaged in union activities. 

  Incidents occurred at a facility in Butte, Montana. 


   WYLIE CONSTRUCTION CO., C.E.
   (21CA25857)
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix III:81

Contracts with the Navy to provide office and residential
construction services ($44,210,000). 

Highlights from Board decision include: 

  Interfered with the rights of union representatives to enter job
     site for the purpose of engaging in lawful union activity. 

  Incident occurred in Tustin, California. 


CASE SUMMARIES OF 15 FIRMS WITH
MORE SERIOUS LABOR VIOLATIONS
========================================================== Appendix IV

Summaries of the cases involving the 15 firms that might be
considered more serious violators of NLRA based on our review of
Board decisions appear below.  These summaries capture information
from FPDS on the federal contracts that were awarded to these
violators in fiscal year 1993 as well as information from Board
decisions issued during fiscal years 1993 and 1994.  The violations
and remedies are reported as they appear in the Board decisions.\49

Modifications to the violations and remedies if the case was appealed
are reflected in these summaries. 


--------------------
\49 In many cases in which a statement in these summaries is
attributed to the Board decision, it was actually contained in the
ALJ decision that was affirmed by the Board. 


   BARTLETT NUCLEAR, INC.
   (31CA18203)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

The firm's headquarters is in Plymouth, Massachusetts.  The
violations occurred at the firm's Diablo Canyon, California,
facility. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:1.1

The firm provides radiation protection services to nuclear power
plants throughout the United States.  During outages, Bartlett
Nuclear, Inc., provides temporary workers to utility companies.  All
of its fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($120,000) are with
the Tennessee Valley Authority. 


      VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:1.2

This firm violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of NLRA.  The firm
abolished the jobs of 23 workers who would not abandon their economic
strike and then put these workers on probation for a year. 

The firm

  threatened to abolish the jobs of workers if they did not abandon
     their strike and return to work;

  took this action against 23 workers;

  put these 23 workers on probation for a year, which prevented them
     from obtaining employment assignments for a year; and

  realizing the legal problems that might ensue, the firm
     subsequently told 18 of the 23 workers that the probation was
     rescinded.  By that time, however, many of these workers missed
     out on job opportunities. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:1.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer each of the affected workers immediate reinstatement to their
     former positions without loss of seniority and other privileges;
     and

  make these workers whole for lost earnings from the date of
     discharge to the date of a bona fide offer of reinstatement,
     less net interim earnings, plus interest. 


   BEAIRD INDUSTRIES, INC.
   (15CA11334)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

The firm's headquarters is in Shreveport, Louisiana, also where the
violations occurred. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.1

Sixty-seven percent of its $5.6 million in fiscal year 1993 federal
contract dollars ($3.8 million) are with the U.S.  Army Corps of
Engineers for ship repair.  These contract dollars went to its parent
firm, Trinity Industries, Inc. 


      VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.2

The firm violated Section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA.  The firm
discharged 4 employees and took numerous unlawful actions to
discourage union activity.  The Board decision states that these
violations occurred during the firm's attempt to "oust" the union
during a lawful ULP strike. 

The firm

  prohibited its workers from distributing prounion materials;

  solicited its workers to sign a petition to oust the union as the
     exclusive collective-bargaining agent;

  promised its workers a pay raise if they would oust the union;

  promised its workers an increase in work hours if they would oust
     the union;

  promised an employee a test to qualify for a higher grade at higher
     pay if the employee signed a petition to oust the union;

  threatened to reduce hours if workers did not oust the union;

  interrogated workers about union activities;

  promised more work if its employees ousted the union as the
     bargaining representative;

  solicited its employees to encourage other employees to sign the
     petition to oust the union;

  implied to its employees that they would receive unspecified
     benefits if they ousted the union as their bargaining
     representative;

  promised increased benefits to nonunion employees;

  threatened retaliation to union employees and more onerous work for
     prounion employees if the employees ousted the union as the
     bargaining representative;

  discharged 4 workers due to their union activities;

  transferred one employee from the night shift to the day shift due
     to union activity;

  withdrew recognition from and refused to bargain with union by
     unilaterally removing workers from bargaining unit and reducing
     work hours without notifying and bargaining with the union; and

  created vacancies in a substantial percentage of jobs in a
     particular job classification in the bargaining unit without
     notifying and bargaining with the union. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:2.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer the 4 discharged workers immediate and full reinstatement to
     their former jobs or equivalent positions;

  make them whole for any loss of earnings and any other benefits,
     plus interest;

  recognize, meet, and bargain with the union;

  restore conditions to the status quo as they existed before
     illegally withdrawing recognition and make workers whole for any
     loss of earnings and benefits, plus interest; and

  accord all striking workers the rights and privileges of ULP
     strikers, offering strikers not heretofore reinstated immediate
     and full reinstatement and making them whole for any loss of
     earnings. 


   BEVERLY ENTERPRISES
   (06CA19444)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

This firm is also referred to as Beverly California Corporation.  Its
headquarters is in Fort Smith, Arkansas, although at the time of the
violations the firm was based in Pasadena, California. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.1

Beverly Enterprises operates nearly 1,000 nursing home facilities
throughout the nation.  All of its fiscal year 1993 federal contract
dollars ($10.3 million) are with the Department of Veteran Affairs
for providing nursing home services. 


      VIOLATIONS\50
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.2

This firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA.  The firm
discharged 16 workers and took numerous unlawful actions to "thwart"
union activity during organizing campaigns at 23 facilities.  The
Board decision states that this firm has a history of violations. 

The firm

  threatened workers with disciplinary action or more onerous working
     conditions because of their union activity or other concerted
     protected activity;

  threatened workers with loss of benefits if they selected a union
     to represent them;

  threatened workers with discharge because of their union activity
     or other protected concerted activity;

  threatened workers with reprisal for testifying at a Board hearing;

  threatened to close or sell a facility if the workers selected the
     union as their collective bargaining representative;

  threatened to withhold a wage increase because workers selected the
     union as their collective bargaining representative;

  threatened workers that if they engaged in a strike, they would not
     be permitted to visit close relatives who are residents at the
     facility;

  threatened workers with the futility of selecting a union;

  forbade or attempted to forbade workers from engaging in lawful
     solicitation or distribution on behalf of a union on or off its
     property and during nonworking time or in nonwork and/or
     nonpatient care areas;

  transferred workers to less desirable positions because of their
     activities on behalf of the union;

  promised increased wages or benefits to induce workers to defeat or
     decertify the union;

  forbade or restricted the activities of employee union
     representatives in nonwork or nonpatient care areas;

  interrogated workers with regard to their union activity or the
     union activity of others;

  engaged in surveillance of employee's union activities or created
     the impression of such surveillance among workers;

  discharged workers or imposed disciplinary measures on workers
     including suspensions, written warnings, oral warnings, or
     transfers because of their activities on behalf of or support
     for a union or their participating in other concerted protected
     activity;

  issued less favorable performance evaluations because of their
     support for or activities on behalf of a union;

  failed and refused to bargain in good faith with a union selected
     by a majority of its workers as their collective-bargaining
     representative;

  unilaterally implemented changes in terms of conditions of
     employment of workers without prior notice or affording an
     opportunity to bargain to the union selected as their collective
     bargaining representative;

  failed and refused to meet and bargain with a union representing
     its employee, on request, with information necessary and
     relevant to its collective-bargaining functions;

  failed and refused to meet and bargain with a union representing
     its workers concerning workers complaints and grievances; and

  assaulted union representatives or delegates. 


--------------------
\50 The U.S.  Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Feb.  28, 1994) modified
the Board's decision.  This summary reflects the case after
incorporating the Court of Appeals decision. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:3.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer full reinstatement to 16 workers (across several different
     centers) to their former positions or, if those positions no
     longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions;

  make whole the 16 workers listed above, the 17 workers unlawfully
     discharged on September 15, 1986 but later rehired at Fayette
     Health Care Center, and 4 other workers (of different centers)
     for any loss of pay and other benefits, with interest;

  make whole, with interest, those workers at Parkview Gardens Care
     Center adversely affected by the unlawful implementation of the
     vacation buy-out program;

  on request, furnish to the applicable union information that is
     relevant and necessary to its role as exclusive bargaining
     representative of the unit workers;

  on request, bargain in good faith concerning wages, hours, and
     other terms and conditions of employment with any union selected
     by its workers as their collective-bargaining representative;
     and

  set aside the representation elections at Four Chaplains
     Convalescent Center and Parkview Manor Nursing Home and have new
     elections ordered and conducted by the Regional Director for
     Region 7 and Region 30, respectively, whenever the latter
     desires it to be appropriate. 


   CATERAIR INTERNATIONAL
   (31CA18702)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4

The firm's headquarters is in Bethesda, Maryland.  The violations
occurred at three facilities in Los Angeles, California. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:4.1

The firm caters food for commercial airlines.  All of its fiscal year
1993 federal contract dollars ($133,000) are with the Army for the
provision of food services.  These contract dollars went to its
parent firm, Caterair Holdings Corporation. 


      VIOLATIONS\51
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:4.2

The firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA.  The violations
occurred during the firm's attempt to decertify the union.  During a
lawful ULP strike, 289 workers were unlawfully discharged by
Caterair.  The firm then brought in permanent replacements. 

The firm

  circulated a petition among workers to decertify the union;

  promised economic benefits and threatened economic harm;

  told workers that they were discharged or automatically replaced if
     they went on strike;

  failed and refused to reinstate ULP strikers to their former or
     equivalent positions of employment;

  withdrew recognition from union and refused to bargain with the
     union; and

  unilaterally granted a wage increase without bargaining with the
     union. 


--------------------
\51 The U.S.  Court of Appeals (D.C.  Circuit, April 29, 1994)
modified the Board's decision.  This summary reflects the case after
incorporating the Court of Appeals decision. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:4.3

The firm was ordered to

  reinstate ULP strikers and pay them back pay, with interest. 


   DURBIN POULTRY COMPANY
   (MARSHALL)
   (15CA11268 AND 15CA11528)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:5

The violations occurred at its facility in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:5.1

The firm is engaged in the processing and nonretail sale of poultry
products.  Ninety-five percent of its $3.5 million in fiscal year
1993 federal contract dollars ($3.3 million) are with the Department
of Agriculture to provide poultry.  These contract dollars went to
its parent firm, Durbin Marshall Food Corporation. 


      VIOLATIONS\52
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:5.2

Four employees were discharged and numerous unlawful actions taken to
discourage union activity.  For both cases, the firm received a broad
cease and desist order, which, as stated in one of the decisions, was
for "widespread and egregious unlawful acts committed by the
employer."

In case 15CA11268, this firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (4) of
NLRA.  The firm

  interrogated workers regarding union membership, activities, and
     sympathies and that of their fellow workers;

  informed an employee that it would be futile for the employee to
     select the union as his bargaining representative;

  threatened two workers with discharge because of union activities;

  threatened one employee with plant closure if he selected the union
     as his bargaining representative;

  threatened workers with reduced wages and benefits if the union was
     selected;

  told two workers that the plant manager had ordered the supervisor
     to check their work to find fault with it in order to discharge
     them;

  solicited workers to withdraw their union support and promised them
     job security if they would do so;

  told workers that if they withdrew union support, they would save
     their jobs;

  informed workers that the employer had instructed the supervisor to
     harass them because of their union involvement;

  informed two workers that the personnel manager had instructed the
     supervisor to plant employer property on their person in order
     to accuse them of stealing in order to discharge them;

  informed workers that the employer was making a list of workers who
     wore union insignia;

  informed workers that their raises were withheld because of union
     activities;

  threatened to discharge an employee in order to restrain her from
     testifying in this hearing;

  told an employee that the workers were on such short hours because
     of the union;

  prohibited employee solicitation activity on its premises by
     permitting antiunion activities;

  reduced the workweek of its workers;

  refused to allow one employee to stay in the breakroom or on
     parking lot premises beyond his working hours, and issued him a
     written reprimand for remaining on the premises;

  decreased the hours of two workers;

  issued written warnings to six workers;

  assigned more onerous work to and decreased the hours of one
     employee and harassed her;

  terminated two workers; and

  discharged a supervisor because of his refusal to commit ULPs in
     order to discourage workers from joining, supporting, and
     assisting the union or engaging in other concerted activities. 

In case 15CA11528, the firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (4) of NLRA. 
The firm

  threatened workers with discharge because they testified in an NLRB
     hearing;

  threatened its workers that it was futile for them to select the
     union;

  threatened its workers with plant closure if they selected the
     union;

  interrogated an employee about his union activities; and

  discharged and refused to rehire an employee because she gave
     testimony in an NLRB hearing. 


--------------------
\52 The U.S.  Court of Appeals (5th Circuit, Dec.  16, 1994) modified
the Board's decision.  This summary reflects the case after
incorporating the Court of Appeals decision. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:5.3

In case 15CA11268, the firm was ordered to

  rescind the unlawful warnings issued to seven workers,

  rescind its unlawful discharges of two workers and the unlawful
     transfer and reduction of hours of one other employee and offer
     them full reinstatement to their former positions and make them
     whole for all loss of wages and benefits, with interest;

  make whole the discharged supervisor for his lost earnings and
     benefits from the date of his discharge until the date on which
     the employer first learned of his prior misconduct constituting
     a lawful basis for discharge, with interest; and

  make whole all workers for all losses of wages and benefits
     sustained by them, with interest, as a result of the unlawful
     reduction in work hours. 

In case 15CA11528, the firm was ordered to

  offer an employee discharged for testifying at an NLRB hearing
     immediate and full reinstatement to her former job and make this
     employee whole for any loss of earnings plus interest. 


   FLEXSTEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.
   (25CA21795)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:6

The firm's headquarters is in Dubuque, Iowa.  The violations occurred
at the firm's New Paris, Indiana, facility. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:6.1

The firm manufactures, sells, and distributes recreational vehicle
equipment and related products.  Eighty-nine percent of its $306,000
in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($272,000) are with the
Air Force for household furniture. 


      VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:6.2

The firm violated Section 8(a)1 of NLRA.  During an organizing
campaign, the firm took numerous unlawful actions to discourage union
activities, including threatening its workers with more onerous work
rates, loss of benefits, discharge, and plant closure if they
selected the union.  The firm also withheld $50 of workers' pay as
simulated union dues. 

The firm

  promised its employees improved terms and conditions if they would
     abandon union support;

  interrogated its employees regarding their union membership,
     activities, and sympathies;

  discriminatorily enforced a no-solicitation, no-distribution rule
     regarding union information;

  threatened its employees through its supervisors with the
     elimination of their benefits and requiring the union to bargain
     from scratch if its employees selected the union as their
     collective-bargaining representative;

  gave its employees the impression that their union activities were
     under surveillance;

  withheld $50 of employees' pay as simulated union dues, fines, and
     assessments without their authorization, requiring employees to
     sign a receipt acknowledging their agreement with employer's
     position that they would be required to pay at least the amount
     withheld for union dues, and delaying by a day paying the amount
     withheld to any employee who refused to sign the receipt;

  threatened its employees with more onerous work rates and loss of
     pay if they selected the union;

  threatened its employees with loss of their jobs or discharge if
     they selected the union;

  threatened its employees with plant closure if they selected the
     union; and

  issued to its employees written material wherein the firm
     threatened its employees with loss of work and jobs if they
     selected the union. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:6.3

The firm was ordered to

  hold a rerun election for the union at such time deemed that a free
     choice on the issue of representation can be held. 


   FLUOR DANIEL, INC.
   (26CA13842)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:7

The firm's headquarters is in Irvine, California.  The violations
occurred in several facilities in Kentucky. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:7.1

Fluor Daniel, Inc., is engaged in the engineering, construction, and
maintenance business throughout the United States.  Seventy-two
percent of its $508 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract
dollars ($367 million) are with the Department of Energy.  These
contract dollars went to its parent firm, the Fluor Corporation.  In
this case, Fluor Daniel entered into a 3-year contract with Big
Rivers Electric Company to do service and maintenance work on various
power generating facilities operated by Big Rivers. 


      VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:7.2

The firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of NLRA.  The firm
discriminatorily refused to hire 53 applicants because of their union
affiliation and discharged one employee for refusing to cross a
picket line.  The Board decision found there was "strong evidence of
union animus" in this case because not one applicant whose
application bore the words "voluntary union organizer" was hired,
even when their qualifications and job experience were at least equal
of those hired. 

The firm

  threatened workers with discipline and discharge if they refused to
     cross a picket line;

  discharged an employee because the employee refused to cross a
     picket line; and

  failed and refused to offer positions to 53 discriminatees because
     they engaged in the protected concerted activity of letting the
     employer know they were voluntary union organizers. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:7.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer the employee who was discharged for refusing to cross a
     picket line full reinstatement to his former position and offer
     to the 53 individuals (refused hire because engaged in
     activities on behalf of a labor organization) employment in
     positions for which they applied or, if those positions no
     longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions; and

  make the above individuals whole for any loss of pay and other
     benefits suffered by them. 


   THE LANE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
   (05CA22885)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:8

The firm's headquarters is in Meriden, Connecticut. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:8.1

The firm is engaged in construction.  Ninety percent of its $16
million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($14.4 million)
are with the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers to construct dams and
other facilities.  These contract dollars went to its parent firm,
Lane Industries, Inc. 


      VIOLATIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:8.2

The firm violated sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of NLRA.  The firm
discharged three employees for their union activities and interfered
with the union's attempt to organize in a variety of ways.  The Board
issued a bargaining order because the "coercive and discriminatory
conduct has interfered with the holding of a fair and free election."

The firm

  threatened workers with a reduction in wages if they selected the
     union as their bargaining representative;

  coercively interrogated workers regarding their union sympathies;

  admonished workers that they were "putting the wood" to the
     employer and "biting the hand that feeds them" in seeking union
     representation;

  discriminatorily laid off three workers; and

  coercively and discriminatorily interfered with the holding of a
     fair and free election among the unit workers. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:8.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer the three discharged workers immediate and full reinstatement
     to their former jobs or, in the event their former jobs no
     longer exist, to substantially equivalent jobs;

  make the above workers whole, with interest, for any loss of
     earnings they may have suffered by reason of their
     discriminatory layoffs; and

  upon request, bargain in good faith with the union as the exclusive
     bargaining agent of its workers and if an understanding is
     reached, embody that understanding in a signed agreement. 


   MONFORT OF COLORADO, INC.
   (27CA07742)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:9

The firm's headquarters is in Greeley, Colorado, also where the
violations occurred. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:9.1

This case involves the firm's Greeley, Colorado, meat processing
facility, which reopened in March 1982 after a 2-year closure. 
Forty-seven percent of its $117 million in fiscal year 1993 federal
contract dollars ($55.7 million) are with the Department of
Agriculture.  These contract dollars went to its parent firm,
ConAgra, Inc. 


      VIOLATION\53
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:9.2

The firm violated section 8(a)(3) and (1) of NLRA.  The firm
discriminated against 258 former union employees by applying more
rigorous hiring criteria when the plant reopened.  The firm also took
numerous unlawful actions against employees to discourage union
activity.  The Board issued a broad cease and desist order because of
ULPs that were "numerous, pervasive, and outrageous." The Board also
ordered that the election be set aside because of the firm's conduct. 

The firm

  threatened workers that if the union won the election, the employer
     would settle the outstanding ULP case against the employer, fire
     the present workers, and rehire the former workers;

  told workers that, if the union lost the election, the employer
     would fight vigorously the outstanding ULP case against the
     employer, even if it took years to do so, before the employer
     would fire even one present employee in order to rehire a former
     employee;

  threatened workers that the plant would be closed if the workers
     selected the union to represent them;

  threatened an employee that the workers' selection of the union as
     their collective-bargaining representative would cause the
     Greeley plant to be closed again, and suggested in that context
     that the workers form their own organization to bargain with the
     employer instead of selecting the union to represent them;

  told an employee that workers who voted for the union were a bunch
     of troublemakers and ought to be fired;

  threatened an employee that workers would lose their profit-sharing
     benefits if the workers selected the union as their
     collective-bargaining representative;

  threatened an employee with retaliation for revealing statements
     made by a supervisor of the employer, which had resulted in the
     union's filing charges against the employer;

  told an employee that any employee who would testify against the
     employer in an NLRB hearing ought to be "shot or abandoned on
     some island";

  promised an employee free workgloves if the employee voted against
     the union;

  told an employee to solicit other company workers to sign a
     petition against the union, in the context of telling the same
     employee that he would be sure to get a promotion to a leadman's
     job;

  disparately applied its work rules to permit workers to engage in
     antiunion activities in the plant while not permitting workers
     to engage in prounion activities;

  failed to rehire or delayed in rehiring former workers because of
     their past union membership and activities after they had filed
     Monfort applications for employment;

  refused to (re)hire an employee because the union had filed a ULP
     charge with the NLRB against the employer with regard to the
     employer's prior termination of the employee; and

  applied discriminatory application of facially neutral hiring
     criteria to disqualify former unionized workers who sought
     reemployment at the employer's reopened plant. 


--------------------
\53 The U.S.  Court of Appeals (10th Circuit, May 19, 1992) modified
the Board's decision.  This summary reflects the case after
incorporating the Court of Appeals decision. 


      REMEDIES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV:9.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer an employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former
     job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
     equivalent position, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
     and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
     against him;

  offer an employee and those former workers whom it had unlawfully
     refused to rehire immediate and full reemployment in the
     positions for which they would have been hired but for the
     respondent's unlawful discrimination, or, if these positions no
     longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions at the
     respondent's Greeley, Colorado, plant;

  make each of them, as well as those former workers whom it has
     unlawfully delayed in rehiring, whole for any loss of earnings
     and other benefits resulting from the discrimination against
     them, and place on a preferential hiring list all remaining
     discriminatees who would have been hired but for the lack of
     available jobs;

  on request of the union made within 1 year of the issuance of the
     order here, make available to the union without delay a list of
     names and addresses of all workers employed at the Greeley,
     Colorado, plant at the time of the request;

  immediately on request of the union, for a period of 2 years from
     the date on which the notice is posted or until the regional
     director has issued an appropriate certification following a
     fair and free election, whichever comes first, grant the union
     and its representatives reasonable access to the Greeley,
     Colorado, plant bulletin boards and all places where notices to
     workers are customarily posted;

  immediately on request of the union, for a period of 2 years from
     the date on which the notice is posted or until the regional
     director has issued an appropriate certification following a
     fair and free election, whichever comes first, permit a
     reasonable number of union representatives access for reasonable
     periods of time to nonwork areas within its Greeley, Colorado,
     plant so that the union may present its views on unionization to
     the workers, orally and in writing, in such areas during changes
     of shift, breaks, mealtimes, or other nonwork periods;

  in the event that during a period of 2 years following the date on
     which the notice is posted, or until the regional director has
     issued an appropriate certification following a fair and free
     election, whichever comes first, any supervisor or agent of the
     employer convenes any group of workers at the employer's
     Greeley, Colorado, plant and addresses them on the question of
     union representation, give the union reasonable notice thereof
     and afford two union representatives a reasonable opportunity to
     be present at such speech and, on request, give one of them
     equal time and facilities to address the workers on the question
     of union representation;

  in any election which the Board may schedule at the employer's
     Greeley, Colorado, plant within a period of 2 years following
     the date on which the notice is posted and in which the union is
     a participant, permit, on request by the union, at least two
     union representatives reasonable access to the plant and
     appropriate facilities to deliver a 30-minute speech to workers
     on working time, the date thereof not to be more than 10 working
     days but not less than 48 hours before any such election; and

  it is further ordered that the election conducted on June 24, 1983,
     be set aside. 


   OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
   (09CA27618)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:10

The firm's headquarters is in Richmond, Virginia.  The violations
occurred at a facility in Lexington, Kentucky. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:10.1

The employer is engaged in the interstate transportation of freight. 
Sixty-four percent of its $14.6 million in fiscal year 1993 federal
contract dollars ($9.3 million) are with the Department of
Agriculture.  These contract dollars went to its parent firm, Union
Pacific Corporation. 


      VIOLATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:10.2

The firm violated section 8(a) (1) and (3) of NLRA.  The firm
discharged three workers for their union organizing activities and
took numerous unlawful actions to discourage employees from union
activity, including "coercively" interrogating employees. 

The firm

  told workers it thought the union had a "plant" in the terminal and
     that the employer thought it was a certain named employee,
     creating the impression among workers that their concerted
     organizing activities were under surveillance;

  asked workers who the "plant" was and which workers were supporting
     the union;

  told workers it wanted to know who the "plant" was so it could get
     rid of him;

  asked workers to keep their eyes and ears open and report any
     workers engaged in distributing leaflets to management
     immediately;

  told workers if union organizers came in the gate, to close the
     gate, so employer could have them arrested, the employer
     manifested animus toward the union by restraining and coercing
     workers in the exercise of their protected rights;

  told workers it was okay for them to "beat the hell" out of the
     union organizers;

  told workers the employer had an open door policy, that they did
     not need a union;

  told workers that its unionized plants did not have a contract,
     tending to make its workers believe unionization was futile;

  told workers top management said that if the workers selected the
     union, employer would close its doors; and

  discriminatorily discharged three workers for leading union
     organizing activities. 


      REMEDIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:10.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer to recall the three workers for immediate and full
     reinstatement to their former jobs and make them whole, with
     interest, for any loss of earnings or benefits they may have
     suffered as a result of their discharge. 


   TYSON FOODS, INC.
   (26CA14731)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:11

The firm's headquarters is in Springdale, Arkansas.  The violations
occurred at its facility within the same state in the city of
Dardanelle. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:11.1

The firm is engaged in the processing of poultry products. 
Eighty-one percent of its $10.8 million in fiscal year 1993 federal
contract dollars ($8.8 million) are for the Department of
Agriculture. 


      VIOLATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:11.2

This firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (5) of NLRA.  The firm took
numerous unlawful actions to discourage employees from union
activity, including assisting a decertification drive in which the
firm withdrew recognition of the union and unilaterally implemented
changes in wages and working conditions.  At this time, workers were
threatened, interrogated, and solicited for their signatures on a
decertification petition. 

The firm

  directed, controlled, circulated, and assisted in the circulation
     of a decertification petition;

  promised workers wage increases, bonuses, and other benefits if the
     workers would decertify the union;

  threatened workers with the loss of wage increases, bonuses, and
     other benefits if the workers did not decertify the union;

  while engaged in the training of new workers, told these workers
     that the union could do no more for them than the employer and
     thus discouraged support for the union and encouraged bypassing
     the union and dealing directly with the company;

  surveyed and interrogated workers concerning their union sympathies
     and preferences by observing them as they were solicited by
     employer's agent for their signatures on a decertification
     petition;

  failed and refused to bargain with the union as the exclusive
     collective-bargaining representative of its workers in the
     above-noted unit;

  withdrew recognition of the union as the exclusive
     collective-bargaining representative of its workers;

  unilaterally implemented the following changes in wages and working
     conditions:  instituting a performance bonus of between 2 and
     3-1/2 percent; implementing a wage increase; and increasing
     shift premiums;

  unilaterally implemented a new attendance policy and a new service
     award and attendance award program;

  refused to furnish the union with information which it requested;
     and

  interfered with workers discussing union business on nonwork time
     in nonwork areas. 


      REMEDIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:11.3

The firm was ordered to

  recognize and, on request, bargain with the union as the exclusive
     representative of the workers concerning terms and conditions of
     employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
     understanding in a signed agreement;

  on request of the union, rescind any or all of the changes it has
     unilaterally implemented on or after the date it unlawfully
     withdrew recognition from the union, including, but not limited
     to, a performance bonus of between 2 and 3-1/2 percent, a wage
     increase, an increased shift premium, a new attendance policy,
     and a new service award and attendance award program; and

  furnish the union information it requested in its letter of July 9,
     1991, and, on request, furnish the union any other necessary and
     relevant information which it may request in furtherance of its
     role as bargaining representative of the workers. 


   URSERY COMPANIES, INC.
   (34CA05756)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:12

The firm's headquarters is in Cheshire, Connecticut.  The violations
occurred in the same state in the city of Windsor-Locks. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:12.1

The firm was under contract to perform janitorial services for United
Technologies Corporation at its Hamilton-Standard Division plant. 
Eighty-two percent of its $512,000 in fiscal year 1993 federal
contract dollars ($421,000) are with the Department of Defense to
provide janitorial services. 


      VIOLATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:12.2

The firm violated section 8(a)(1) and (3) of NLRA.  The firm
discharged three employees because of their support for the union. 
Also, the firm took numerous unlawful actions against employees
during an organizing campaign.  At the time of these discharges, only
one challenged ballot was blocking the union's certification as
bargaining representative. 

The firm

  coercively interrogated workers as to their support for the union;

  threatened to discharge workers to discourage them from supporting
     the union;

  threatened to freeze their wages to induce them to vote against the
     union;

  warned them that its records could be changed to facilitate their
     discharge if they continued to support the union;

  created the impression among them that their union activities were
     being kept under surveillance;

  informed them in effect that it was futile for them to support the
     union;

  warned them that they were gambling with their jobs if they voted
     for the union;

  discharged three workers because they supported the union; and

  refused to grant permission to an employee to leave the
     Hamilton-Standard plant because the employee supported the
     union. 


      REMEDIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:12.3

The firm was ordered to

  offer the above three workers immediate and full reinstatement to
     their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
     substantially equivalent positions, and make them whole for any
     loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
     discrimination against them. 


   VICTORIAN HEIGHTS HEALTH CARE
   CENTER
   (34CA06079)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:13

The firm's headquarters is in Manchester, Connecticut, also where the
violations occurred. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:13.1

This firm operates three nursing homes which provide inpatient
medical and professional care services for the elderly and infirm. 
All of its $14,000 in fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars are
to the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing home care. 
These contract dollars went to its parent firm, Health Care
Retirement Corp.  Amer.  Its current parent firm is Health Care
Facilities. 


      VIOLATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:13.2

The firm violated section 8(a)(1)(3) and (5) of NLRA.  The firm took
numerous unlawful actions to discourage union activity, including
refusing to hire one employee and denying another employee a wage
increase because of their union activities.  The firm also threatened
employees with changes in the terms and conditions of employment
because of their union membership. 

The firm

  changed its practice of granting wage increases to its licensed
     practical nurses without prior notice to the union and without
     affording the union an opportunity to bargain with employer with
     respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct;

  removed work from its therapeutic recreational directors without
     prior notice to the union and without affording the union an
     opportunity to bargain with employer with respect to this
     conduct and the effects of this conduct;

  bypassed the union and dealt directly with its therapeutic
     recreational directors regarding hours and other terms and
     conditions of employment;

  interrogated workers regarding their membership in the union;

  threatened its workers with unspecified reprisals because of their
     membership in or activities on behalf of the union;

  threatened workers with changes in their terms and conditions of
     employment because of their membership in or activities on
     behalf of the union;

  created the impression among its workers that their activities on
     behalf of the union were under surveillance;

  solicited employee complaints and grievances in order to discourage
     its workers' membership in, or activities on behalf of the
     union;

  promised its workers increased benefits and improvements in the
     terms and conditions of employment in order to discourage their
     membership in, or activities on behalf of the union;

  informed an employee that she could not be hired because of her
     membership in, or activities on behalf of the union;

  conditioned this employee's employment upon refraining from
     membership in, or activities on behalf of the union;

  threatened this employee with surveillance if she became a member
     of or engaged in activities on behalf of the union; and

  constructively discharged this employee because of her membership
     in or activities on behalf of the union. 


      REMEDIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:13.3

The firm was ordered to

  on request, bargain in good faith with the union concerning
     removing unit work from its therapeutic recreational directors,
     wages, hours and other conditions of employment of its
     therapeutic recreational directors, and the granting of wage
     increases to its licensed practical nurses;

  make the employee whole for any difference between her initial
     5-percent wage increase promised to her and based upon her
     annual appraisal, and the bonus granted to her in lieu of such
     5-percent wage increase, for the period beginning the date she
     received her first bonus payment, until she quit her job in July
     1993;

  offer to the employee the firm had refused to hire full and
     immediate reinstatement to the position of a licensed practical
     nurse or a substantially equivalent position, if such position
     no longer exists without prejudice to her seniority and other
     privileges previously enjoyed; and

  make this employee whole for any loss of earnings suffered by her
     as a result of the discrimination against her. 


   WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.  (SALT
   LAKE DIVISION)
   (27CA10940)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:14

The firm's headquarters is in Oak Brook, Illinois.  The violations
occurred in the West Jordan, Utah, area. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:14.1

The firm is engaged in the pickup and disposal of waste.  Forty
percent of its $224.8 million in fiscal year 1993 federal contract
dollars ($90.2 million) are with the Department of Energy.  These
contract dollars went to its parent firm, WMX Technologies, Inc. 


      VIOLATIONS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:14.2

The firm violated section 8(a)(1)(2)(3) and (5) of NLRA.  The firm
discharged an employee and took numerous other unlawful actions to
discourage union activity, including threatening employees with loss
of current wages and benefits if the union were voted in.  Also
created employer-dominated committees during an organizing drive;
then dissolved these committees after the union lost and filed
objections to the election.  The Board issued both a broad cease and
desist order and a bargaining order because of "manifold violations
of the Act, in combination with the union's card majority." The
decision also refers to the "pervasive and serious nature of the
employer's misconduct."

The firm

  failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the union;

  established and dealt with the routing and productivity, safety,
     and benefits committees concerning terms and conditions of
     employment;

  promulgated and announced the likely adoption in August of new
     programs initiated by the benefits and safety committees;

  announced that several new programs initiated by the benefits and
     safety committees were in effect;

  instituted several new programs initiated by the benefits and
     safety committees and adjusted the drivers' routes after
     conferring with the routing and productivity committee;

  retracted the new instituted programs initiated by the benefits and
     safety committees because the union filed objections to the
     election;

  issued a written warning to an employee and concomitantly deemed
     his hydrant accident chargeable, because of his union sympathies
     and activities;

  discharged the above employee and concomitantly deemed his
     wall-poke\54 as chargeable and accorded prejudicial weight to
     his landfill and windshield incidents, because of his union
     sympathies and activities;

  issued a written reprimand to an employee supposedly for
     insubordination, because of his union sympathies and activities;

  decided an employee's ice-related accident was chargeable because
     of his union sympathies and activities;

  promised workers that the employer would remedy their complaints if
     they rejected the union;

  told one employee he would lose existing wages and benefits, with
     restoration dependent upon negotiation, should the union be
     voted in and implied to this employee that the employer would
     close its doors, costing the workers their jobs, if the union
     got in;

  told one employee that the workers would lose existing wages and
     benefits "until they're negotiated for" should the union get in;

  said that employer "would risk ULPs to keep the union out," thereby
     indicating that the organizational effort was a futility;

  questioned an employee as to why he thought the workers needed a
     union;

  implicitly threatened the job security of workers not wishing to
     participate on the committees then being formed;

  promised through the three committees to remedy employee complaints
     to discourage their support of the union;

  promised to remedy the complaints of workers' wives--and by
     implication their husbands'--to discourage support for the
     union;

  questioned an employee as to whether the employer had his support
     in the election;

  promised an employee unspecified benefits if he voted against the
     union;

  questioned an employee why he had raised his hand at a picnic to
     indicate his support of the union;

  told workers, in substance, that union representation would be a
     futility;

  promised that their complaints would be remedied if they rejected
     the union; and raised the prospect of closure and job loss if
     they brought the union in;

  promised to remedy a complaint raised by an employee to discourage
     his support for the union; and

  announced that the newly instituted programs emanating from the
     benefits and safety committees "couldn't be put into effect"
     because the union had filed objections to the election; asked
     those with knowledge of the objections to show themselves; and
     urged those with "pull" to try to get the objections dropped so
     that employer could put these benefits in. 


--------------------
\54 A fork on his truck poked a hole in a cinder-block wall. 


      REMEDIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:14.3

The firm was ordered to

  recognize and, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with
     the union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
     workers in the above-described unit and embody any resulting
     agreement in a signed document;

  offer an employee immediate and full reinstatement to his former
     job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
     equivalent job;

  make the employee whole for any loss of earnings and benefits
     suffered as a result of his unlawful discharge;

  disband the benefits and safety committees created in July 1989;

  if requested by the union, reinstate any or all of the programs
     growing out of the benefits and safety committees which if
     instituted in August 1989, then retracted because of the
     objections; and, as concerns those programs reinstated, make the
     workers whole as prescribed above in the remedy section for any
     loss occasioned by the retractions;

  if requested by the union, restore the routes as they existed
     before it adjusted them in August 1989;

  rescind its written warning to an employee, as well as its
     determinations that his hydrant accident and wall-poke were
     chargeable, and its treatment of his landfill and windshield
     incidents, respectively, as added justification for his
     discharge; and

  rescind its written reprimand to an employee and its determination
     that his ice-related accident was chargeable;


   WINDSOR CASTLE HEALTH CARE
   FACILITIES, INC.
   (34CA4597)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:15

The firm's headquarters is in Boston, Massachusetts.  The violations
occurred in New Haven, Connecticut. 


      CONTRACT CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:15.1

This firm operates a nursing home providing inpatient medical and
professional care services for the elderly and infirm.  All of the
fiscal year 1993 federal contract dollars ($1.1 million) are with the
Department of Veterans Affairs to provide nursing home care. 


      VIOLATIONS\55
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:15.2

This firm violated section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of NLRA.  The firm
gave exclusive collective bargaining rights to one union to
discourage membership in another.  In addition, the firm threatened
workers with unspecified reprisals and discharge if they refused to
become members of the union endorsed by the employer.  One employee
was unlawfully discharged because of refusal to join the
employer-supported union.  The firm was issued a broad cease and
desist order because of the "pervasive nature" of the violations. 

The firm

  encouraged and supported agents of Local 1115 in that union's
     efforts to solicit membership in Local 1115;

  permitted Local 1115 to utilize the New Haven facility and
     employer's equipment to solicit membership in Local 1115;

  recognized and granted exclusive collective-bargaining rights to
     Local 1115;

  entered, maintained, and enforced a collective-bargaining agreement
     covering rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
     terms and conditions of employment, including a union-security
     provision, of its workers in the unit hereinafter described when
     said union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
     workers in the agreed-to unit of workers;

  discriminated, and is discriminating, in regard to the hire or
     tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its workers;

  discharged an employee because Local 1115 requested an employee's
     discharge for refusing to pay union dues pursuant to the
     union-security provision described in the first paragraph when
     the employee was under no obligation to do so, and because said
     employee refused to execute a dues-checkoff authorization on
     behalf of Local 1115 and refused to become and remain a member
     of Local 1115;

  interrogated its workers concerning their union membership,
     activities, and sympathies;

  interrogated its workers concerning the union membership,
     activities, and sympathies of their fellow workers;

  interrogated its workers as to the nature and substance of
     testimony to be given to the NLRB;

  threatened its workers with unspecified reprisals or discharge if
     they appeared and gave testimony at the NLRB or engaged in
     activities on behalf of District 1199; and

  threatened its workers with discharge if they refused to become a
     member and execute a dues-checkoff card on behalf of Local 1115. 


--------------------
\55 The U.S.  Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit, Jan.  11, 1994) modified
the Board's decision.  This summary reflects the case after
incorporating the Court of Appeals decision. 


      REMEDIES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:15.3

The firm was ordered to

  withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 1115 as the
     collective-bargaining representative of its workers at its New
     Haven, Connecticut, facility unless said labor organization has
     been duly certified by the NLRB as the exclusive representative
     of such workers;

  jointly and severally, with Local 1115 reimburse its past and
     present workers, for all dues and other money's withheld from
     their pay pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement
     executed on October 16, 1989, or by any successor agreement
     thereto, plus interest;

  offer the worker immediate and full reinstatement to the worker's
     former position or, if that job no longer exists, to a
     substantially equivalent position; and

  jointly and severally, with Local 1115, make the worker whole for
     any loss of earnings the worker may have suffered as a result of
     the discharge.